...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ancient Egyptian DNA from 1300BC to 426 AD
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sudaniya: [QB] [QUOTE]Game over. (Substantial SSA component in Gebel Ramlah population doesn't help it score better [on average] than the 'Greek immigrant' sample. As with the recently sampled Natufian sample, samples with more SSA ancestry than a certain amount don't score better [e.g. Bedouin B with more SSA ancestry isn't closer to these Natufians than Bedouin A]). [/QUOTE]So Neolithic (6500 BC) ancient Lower 'Nubians' in Gebel Ramlah were apparently somehow 'identical' to Greek Egyptians based on the dental data and yet "significantly different" from Badari? This MMD distance matrix data should be approached with caution. Mahalanobis Distance statistic seems to be regarded as more reliable. [QUOTE][b]Gebel Ramlah and the Greek Egyptians are widely separated along the y-axis, and are somewhat distinct from 11 or so other samples forming a cluster near the diagram’s center[/b]; Badari, Thebes, and Hawara are at the heart of this cluster. Lisht and El Hesa are removed from the lat- ter grouping along the x- and z-axes, respectively. Lastly, Abydos, Naqada, and Hierakonpolis are located next to one another. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE][b]Were predynastic Badarian peoples descendants of Western Desert Neolithic groups?[/b] If the answer to this question is yes, as suggested by many workers based on cultural affinities between groups (e.g., Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000; Midant-Reynes, 2000a), the Western Desert Gebel Ram- lah and Nile Valley Badari samples might be expected to share a close affinity. [b]Gebel Ramlah is, in fact, significantly different from Badari based on the 22-trait MMD (Table 4)[/b]. For that matter, the Neolithic Western Desert sample is significantly different from all others. Does this divergence then support a non-Egyptian origin for the Badarians, as suggested by some (Brunton and Caton- Thompson, 1928; Arkell, 1975; Krzyz ´ aniak, 1977)? Not necessarily. Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah is clos- est to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Aby- dos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). The lack of a closer affinity may be a result of purported supplementary influence on the Badarians from the Levant (Hendrickx and Vermeersch, 2000) or Eastern Desert (Holmes, 1989). Moreover, Gebel Ramlah is in the south- ernmost part of the Western Desert. The primary source of the Badarian culture is thought to have been the oases farther north (Caton-Thompson, 1926; Hassan, 1986, 1988; Holmes, 1989). Final Neolithic artifacts from the south and north are known to be quite different (Wendorf and Schild, 2001). In the end, although the present dental findings do not provide definitive proof, the fact that Gebel Ramlah is closest to early Upper Egyptians, including Badari, suggests that a Western Desert origin remains a viable hypothesis. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE][b] Was there biological continuity between predynastic Naqada and Badarian peoples? [/b] Most researchers believe there is a direct relationship between these groups, based on material culture similarities (Brunton, 1932; Mond and Meyers, 1937; Massoulard, 1949; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Fairservis, 1972; Midant- Reynes, 2000a,b). A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples is supportive of this hypothesis, and contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970). Badari is concordant with both Naqada samples for most traits (Table 2). This correspondence is reflected by Badari’s 22-trait MMDs with Naqada (0.000) and Hierakonpolis (0.012). The former affinity indicates no difference between samples, and the latter is insignificant (Table 4). These relationships are also evidenced by the nearness of all three samples in the MDS diagrams (Figs. 2, 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Interestingly, these results are at odds with those of workers who reported significant cranial nonmetric (Prowse and Lovell, 1996) and metric (Keita, 1996) differences between the same Badari and Naqada (NAQ) sam- ples studied here. The reason for this disparity is unknown, but may be related to different sample sizes or types of data employed. Dental evidence for Badarian continuity does not simply end with the Naqada period. Of all samples, Badari exhibits the closest affinity to the 14 others based on its low mean MMD of 0.028 and central location in all diagrams (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). In fact, in the 22-trait MDS (Fig. 2), Badari is at the centroid of all 15 Egyptian samples, as shown in Figure 6. These results seemingly run contrary to evidence suggesting that Badarian cultural influence was mostly limited to the vicinity of the type site (Hassan, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). [b]If the present affinities are indicators of genetic variation, then the Badari sample is a good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like. [/b] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] [b] Was the dynastic period an indigenous outgrowth from the Naqada culture? [/b] Before addressing this question, it is of interest to mention the close Naqada-Hierakonpolis affinity based on trait concordance, the low MMD (0.006), and the proximity of the samples to one another (Figs. 2, 3, 5). At first thought, a close relationship might be expected. After all, the culture is known to have expanded from its center at Naqada to influence north and south by the Naqada II phase (Hassan, 1997b; Bard, 2000; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). However, beginning at this time and intensifying in Naqada III, Hierakonpolis became a major competing political/cultural center (Has- san, 1988; Holmes, 1989; Midant-Reynes, 2000a). There are indications (Holmes, 1989) that the inhabitants of these two centers engaged in warfare (for an opposing view, see Wildung, 1984); the result may have been the subjugation of Naqada by Hierakonpolis (Baumgartel, 1955; Bard, 1987), perhaps in alliance with a third major center at Abydos (Bard, 2000). Although the impetus for this conflict is unknown, it probably did not involve major biological differences between the peoples of these two cities, based on the dental findings. Concerning the hypothesized Naqada/dynastic link (Childe, 1952; Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Kantor, 1965; Holmes, 1989; Hassan, 1997b; Bard, 2000; Midant-Rey- nes, 2000a), [b] the homogeneity among most samples provides positive support. Naqada and Hierakonpolis share low, insignificant MMD values (Table 4) with many dynastic samples, as illustrated by their membership in the cluster of 10–11 samples in the MDS of MMD (Fig. 2) and D 2 distances (Fig. 5) and CA row plot (Fig. 3). Evidence in favor of continuity is also demonstrated by comparison of individual samples. Naqada and especially Hierakonpolis share close affinities with First–Second Dynasty Abydos (MMDs ¼ 0.013 and 0.000, respectively). Abydos, in turn, is not significantly different from First Dynasty Tarkhan (0.044), and both share low MMDs with most later dynastic and postdynastic samples (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). These findings do not support the concept of a foreign dynastic ‘‘race’’ (Petrie, 1939)[/b] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] [b]Did Egyptians in the second half of the dynastic period become biologically distinct from those in the first?[/b] Ideally, more dynastic samples than those from Abydos, Thebes, Qurneh, Tarkhan, Saqqara, Lisht, and Giza should be compared to address such a broad question. Yet excluding the Lisht and perhaps Saqqara outliers, [b]it appears that overall dental homogeneity among these samples would argue against such a possibility[/b] (Table 4; Figs. 2, 3, 5). Specifically, an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First–Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11– 12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time. Moreover, there is no conspicuous correlation between MMD and geographic distances within and between Upper and Lower Egypt. A similar pattern is evident when comparing First Dynasty Tarkhan to these same five Old Kingdom through Late Dynastic samples. All display moderate frequencies of the nine influential traits identified by CA, and a largely concordant occurrence of, and trends across, the remaining traits (Table 2). [b]Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well. These findings coincide with those of Brace et al. (1993, p. 1), who stated that the Egyptians were ‘‘largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations,’’ and do not support suggestions of increased diversity due to infiltration of outside physical elements. [/b] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE][b]Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents?[/b] Again, more postdynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. [b]However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, five- cusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify this possibility. [/b] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE][b]CONCLUSIONS [/b] The determination of trait frequencies, identification of highly discriminatory traits, and computation of phenetic affinities among the 15 samples yields a more comprehen- sive dental characterization of ancient Egyptians than presented in previous reports. These findings were, in turn, effective for estimating the synchronic and diachronic biological relatedness that was used to test the viability of several long-standing peopling hypotheses and less formal assumptions. [b]Concerning estimates of relatedness, many samples appear dentally homogeneous. That is, with the exception of four or five outliers, most are phenetically similar enough to imply population continuity from predynastic to perhaps Roman times.[/b] Whereas the more divergent samples exhibit extreme frequencies of nine traits identified as most influential, the others share relatively moderate expressions of these traits and comparable frequencies of the rest. [b]If these samples are indeed representative of the populations from which they were derived, then this homogeneity is also important in addressing the various peopling scenarios. Beginning with Gebel Ramlah, its relative proximity to three of four early Upper Egyptian samples, including Badari, provides some indication of the latter’s origins. Affinities among the predynastic and most dynastic and postdynastic samples are then supportive of: 1) continuity between the Naqada and Badarian peoples, 2) an indigenous outgrowth of the dynastic period from the Naqada, 3) with some exceptions, biological uniformity throughout the dynastic period, and 4) continuity between the latter and subsequent Ptolemaic and Roman periods.[/b] Lastly, beyond these relationships, additional intersample variation was identified by the distance analyses. However, without reference to pertinent existing hypotheses, the discussion of such affinities is beyond the scope of this paper. Still, the patterning illustrated by the MDS and CA diagrams is of interest, and will receive attention in future studies comparing Egyptians to samples from elsewhere in northeast Africa, greater North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and the western Mediterranean area. Such comparisons will also facilitate analyses of these 15 samples in a broader, more region-oriented perspective that may help shed additional light on the ultimate origins of the Egyptian peoples. [/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