...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
IAM population, Natufians, Proto-Semitic, North African Component
» 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] Shoutout to BBH for recognizing the importance of Proto-Semitic speakers early on, as opposed to going along with the mainstream science and commentators who, almost without fail, use 'Semitic' to mean 'modern Middle East', even in anthropology, where the branch of Semitic among the Afroasiatic languages should have been a clue that the genetics of Semitic speakers would have followed their linguistic inclusion in Afroasiatic (ie they would have been indistinguishable from [URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/cultural-convergence-in-the-neolithic-of-the-nile-valley-a-prehistoric-perspective-on-egypts-place-in-africa/198005B5D23B644951E17B3F0803AF74]Africans of the primary pastoral community[/URL] in terms of biology, if not also in culture). This is something I posted on the FB group a long time ago, IIRC. It's one example of a bunch of MENA samples that I consider to be candidates of Semitic (predynastic Egyptian) ancestry. The samples come from a Chl and/or Bronze Age site from the Negev, called Kissufim. [i]Most of the bones were broken and distorted by soil pressure so that very few measurements could be made. However, the overall impression was that the sample from Kissufim resembles samples from other Chal- colithic sites in Israel previously described (Smith 1995). The [b]skulls are small and the face short and broad, with small mandibles (see Fig. 10.1).[/b] Mandibular measure- ments that could be taken are presented in Table 10.3 and long bone measurements in Tables 10.4-10.6. They con- firm previous estimations of the ChaIcolithic populations as relatively slender and probably short (males 166 em and females 155 em) and demonstrate once again the overall similarity ofChaIcolithic populations from differ- ent sites in the southern Levant, including those from Byblos described by Ozbek (1975).[/i] The Human Remains http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/9.pdf Compare with the probable descendants of Semitic speakers in MBII Palestine (note the comment on shorter faces in MBII, recalls Kissufim, but differs from typical Bronze Age samples from Palestine): [i]In the MBII samples the head is shorter and wider, with a high rounded skull and [b]shorter broader face and nose than in any of the earlier or most of the later populations inhabiting Israel[/b]. Statistically significant differences are present in five out of the seven measurements shown in Figure 5, and the direction of change found differs from that to be expected as the result of micro evolutionary trends or environmental factors affecting growth and development. The MBII samples studied here then represent an intrusive group, and their characteristics suggest that they originated from a damper and/or more temperate climate than that of Israel. Determination of their exact point of origin is now planned, using DNA analysis.[/i] People of the Holy Land from prehistory to the recent past https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/PEOPLE-OF-THE-HOLY-lAND-FROM-PREHISTORY-TO-THE-PAST-Patr%C3%ADcia/ac3b6ee13fd0624509af075cd75032c811b34a1e And compare to predynastics themselves (note, again, the shorter faces compared to typical Bronze Age samples from Palestine): [i]Figure 6.3 illustrates some of the cranial parameters of Egyptian, Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age skeletal samples. Mean values and standard deviations of all measurements for Byblos and other Chalcolothic sites in the southern Levant overlap, while those from the Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic sites diverge considerably. The small and incomplete data set (not all meassurements could be made on all speciments) indicates that tthe values quoted may not accurately reflect the entire range of population variation at any one site. However, the data sets available demonstrate consistent differences between samples from the Levant and those from Egypt. This is manifest in cranial breadth, [b]upper facial height and nasal height.[/b][/i] The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf So, Kissufim seems part of a group of sites in the Levant that stand out in terms of looking like candidates for new Egyptian (Semitic) ancestry different from the Egyptian ancestry that was already there from Natufian and earlier times. Since we're dealing with Egyptian ancestry from multiple periods, as I've just said, all of the sites will probably have Egyptian ancestry, including some 5.9ky old Semitic ancestry. But if the aforementioned skull from Kissufim (see L507 in fig 10.1) is as typical of that population as Smith claims, Kissufim is clearly among a more standout group of Bronze Age Levantines with a relatively sharp increase of 5.9ky Semitic/Egyptian ancestry. [i]The Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age specimens recovered from Ein Huderah (Bar Yosef et al. 1977) and Gebel Gunna (Bar Yosef et al. 1986), like those from Wadi Solal (Field 1952), [b]share the short face and narrow cranium characteristic of Early Egyptians.[/b][/i] The Palaeo-Biological Evidence for Admixture between Populations in the Southern levant and Egypt in the Fourth to Third Millennia BCE http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf See the skull in in the Kissufim paper (L507 in fig 10.1). It looks more African than many dynastics, including King Tut, in some ways (see King Tut below). [IMG]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mLw7NwROXvY/UlkpxQ1er4I/AAAAAAAAG2c/zuceegX58fY/s1600/p0813.jpg[/IMG] [/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