|
Post by aroundtheworld on Dec 23, 2005 9:42:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 23, 2005 13:33:18 GMT -5
These are Caucasoid phenotype Ethios Those are mail order brides from the heart of Asia.
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 23, 2005 13:58:07 GMT -5
how are you going to look solely at a dental study and ignore limb ratios It's well-known that limb ratios are not a good indicator of population relationships, as they're too dependent on environment. For example, high-altitude and low-altitude Andeans evolved different limb proportions in response to their different environments, even though they are essentially the same people. On climate and limb proportions: home.entouch.net/dmd/hybrid.htm This data is taken from a chart from page 92 of Stringer and Gamble (Stringer and Gamble, 1993, p. 92):. crural index = Tibia/Femur length Group | crural index | Mean annual temp C | Lapps | 79% | .25 | modern Inuit | 81.5% | 4 | Belgium | 82.5% | 10 | S.African white | 83.2% | 8.5 | Yugoslav | 83.75% | 8.4 | American white | 82.6% | 9.8 | Kalahari Bushman | 83.4% | 18 | New Mexico Indian | 84.6% | 14 | S.African black | 86.4% | 17 | Arizona Indian | 85.5% | 18 | Melanesian | 84.8% | 23 | Pygmy | 85.1% | 24.2 | Egyptian | 84.9% | 26.1 | American Black | 85.25% | 26 |
Running these numbers through Excel gives a high (0.82) correlation between crural index and mean annual temperature. So yes, Egyptians are relatively heat-adapted, but then so are Melanesians and Arizona Indians. Heat adaptation is by no means unique to sub-Saharan Africans. Trinkhaus (1981) provides upper and lower extremity distal/proximal member ratios for numerous populations, including a predynastic Egyptian and Mediterranean European series. The predynastic Egyptian values plotted near tropical Africans, not Mediterranean Europeans. (Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita 1993)
|
|
Terp
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Terp on Dec 24, 2005 11:10:59 GMT -5
Trinkhaus (1981) provides upper and lower extremity distal/proximal member ratios for numerous populations, including a predynastic Egyptian and Mediterranean European series. The predynastic Egyptian values plotted near tropical Africans, not Mediterranean Europeans. (Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships, S.O.Y. Keita 1993) What is the name of the Trinkaus study? How many African, and how many "Mediterranean European" series were included? Were there any samples from other parts of North Africa, or the Middle East? Was there an overlap between African and West Eurasian data points? When you say "plotted near tropical Africans" do you mean Africans only, or Africans plus a whole host of unrelated populations? We need to see the actual data, not your tendentious third-hand report of it.
|
|
Terp
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Terp on Dec 24, 2005 11:19:06 GMT -5
I've spoken to Brace via personal email communication and he doesn't believe Nubians nor Upper Egyptians affiliate with Caucasoids Brace dosen't believe in "Caucasoids," but there can be no getting around that the Egyptians in his study group with West Eurasians in the dendrograms and the discriminant analysis. On the MDS plot of his distance data, Egyptians differ from "Elongated types" in a West Eurasian direction. Furthermore, the dental studies discussed in this thread separate Egyptians from Kenyans, Somalis, and all other sub-Saharan Africans, and so does Hanihara et al.'s non-metric cranial study from 2003. No, it doesn't. So what? Nubians are from north Africa, and they've grouped with other north Africans before in craniometric, dental, and genetic comparisons. Nubians probably look more Negroid today than in the past, because of the "reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism" between 5000 and 1000 BP, probably due to the "increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward" (Froment, www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa2002/ajpa2002.pdf ). They group together in the tree, but in the PCO plot from the same study Russians are right next to other Europeans. On the other hand, the North African Nile Valley samples are not close to Somalis or Kenyans either in the tree or in the scatterplot. If it's an anomaly of one particular study, then no. If it's backed up by other studies then yes. And in this thread alone, we have results from four different lines of evidence in which ancient Egyptians cluster with North Africans / West Asians / Europeans. How would you explain that, a coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 24, 2005 14:36:33 GMT -5
I've spoken to Brace via personal email communication and he doesn't believe Nubians nor Upper Egyptians affiliate with Caucasoids Brace dosen't believe in "Caucasoids," but there can be no getting around that the Egyptians in his study group with West Eurasians in the dendrograms and the discriminant analysis. Brace is just one study, there are three studies from Keita plus numerous others that confirm that predynastic and Early dynastic Egyptians cluster closer to Nubians, Somalis, and other Horn of Africa groups. The dental studies by Irish stated that North Africans cluster away from West Asians and Europeans so there is no close affiliation with the latter two. So are you implying that Nubians were originally Caucasoids? They certainly were not, at least the Wadi halfa Mesolithic and Sahaba Late Pleistocene populations. If you look at the dendogram from Irish's 2000 study Wadi Halfa Mesolithic Nubians didn't cluster other North Africans, but the later Nubians groups did, so make up your mind, were Nubians originally more Negroid or more Caucasoid in the beginning and became either or later on? Because they took on more of a phenotype similar to sub-Saharans from a wet climate doesn't make them originally "Caucasoid", they were most likely elongated types that became mixed with groups from either the Upper Nile and or the Sahara desert. From that same other on Egyptians BTW FROMENT, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98. (fig., tables). The origin of the Ancient Egyptians has long been a subject of interest for physical anthropologists. Aside from some fanciful theories, a general consensus used to present them as Mediterranean, or "leucoderm Africans with a Hamitic background". However, some African nationalists, like Diop, whose theories now have a large scholarly audience, challenged this opinion. Using linguistic and cultural criteria, studies of paintings and carvings, and texts from Antiquity, he tried to demonstrate that the Ancient Egyptians were Black. Besides this typological, or raciological view, a more biologically acceptable, non-racial approach considers human variation as a clinal, environmental adaptation. Numerical computations are possible from cranial, or cephalic measurements, which enable populations to be compared by discriminant analysis. Such an analysis was carried out on a set of 384 skull samples from Egypt, Nubia, India, Maghreb, Europe and Subsaharan Africa. Two very discriminant measurements showed a strong correlation with the axes: nose breadth and bizygomatic breadth. This representation of population distribution maps very closely onto their geographic location: on average, the Ancient Egyptian people is morphologically equidistant from Europe and Africa. Nile Valley inhabitants display a wide range of variation, as a consequence of a long process of mixing. Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations. So why are they different in one tree and not the other ? And you avoided answering why are Somalis close to Chinese in one of the plots if you presume a close genetic relationship to be the reason.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 25, 2005 10:38:30 GMT -5
The New Brace study, which I have had in manuscript format before its publication online has Brace grouping Bronze Age Naqadans, Somalis and Nubians in their own cluster, along with Israeli Fellahin into an "Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa cluster.
"Then Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers) and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.”"
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form.
C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox, A. Russell Nelson,ý Sotiris K. Manolis** & Pan Qifeng‡‡
Whats interesting about this new study is that the Egyptians[Naqadans] cluster with Nubians and Somalis who make up the bulk of this small cluster and *NOT* with Europeans, North Africans nor Eurasians who fall into three separate clusters of their own. Thus what I said before *IS* support by Brace, that predynastic Egyptians, in this case Naqadans, are closer to Nubians and Somalis[who are black Africans] than to Eurasians and Europeans, END OF STORY.
|
|
Terp
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Terp on Dec 26, 2005 11:35:46 GMT -5
to go with cranial non-metric, dental metric, and dental non-metric evidence. Again, I ask you, is it just a weird, wild coincidence that Egyptians have clustered with West Eurasians / North Africans in studies using four lines of physical evidence? Well there is a much closer affiliation between the latter two and North Africans, than with North Africans and sub-Saharans. Irish's dendrogram, again: Poundbury is British. Carthaginians and Bedouin are West Asian-derived. North Africans clustered with all of them, and not with sub-Saharan Africans. Pay attention this time - there were two different changes. The dental traits show a discontinuity before the final Neolithic, and the craniofacial measurements show a gradual increase of Negroid characteristics from 5000 to 1000 BP. Irish attributes the first to gene flow from North Africa, Froment attributes the second to gene flow from the south. If you disagree that these changes were due to gene flow, I don't care. All I was saying is the Nubians today look different than the ones from a few thousand years ago, and can't be used as an example of what the ancient Egyptians looked like. Here is a PC plot from Froment So Froment doesn't exactly support your case, eh? Yes, Horn populatons can appear similar to Egyptian skulls in some comparisons only because Horners have a Caucasoid skull shape relative to other sub-Saharan Africans, which is why Somalis clustered with Europeans in Brace et al. But as I and others have already pointed out in this very thread, there are other studies that find a clear split between Egyptians and Somalis, with Egyptians clustering with Caucasoids, and Somalis clustering with sub-Saharan Africans. See the two Hanihara studies already referred to. Furthermore, as demonstrated in another thread, Somalis are genetically intermediate between West Eurasians and Sub-Saharan Africans, which makes them poor representatives of "Authentic Africanity" if such a thing exists, which it doesn't. Obviously, because Russians were on the edge of both the European and Central Asian clusters. Come on, you could have figured that out if you tried. No, no, no, I'm not saying sub-Saharans and East Asians are genetically similar. I already explained that if a parallelism is an anomaly of one particular study or one particular line of evidence, then it's not meaningful. If it's backed up by other studies then it is. There are also such parallelisms in craniometry (e.g., Africans and Australoids have similar skull shapes in many ways, even though they're genetically unrelated), but I don't see you throwing out Keita's craniometric studies.
|
|
Terp
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by Terp on Dec 26, 2005 13:26:20 GMT -5
Bottom line here. You asked for more than one line of evidence that connects Egyptians with Caucasoids. I presented results from four lines of physical anthropology that group Ancient Egyptians in a broad cluster with North Africans and West Eurasians, and separated from the main cluster of sub-Saharan Africans: craniometric (Brace) cranial non-metric (Hanihara et al., 2003) dental non-metric (Irish) dental metric (Hanihara & Ishida, 2005) You can try to dance around all of that, or argue about minor details of the aforementioned studies, or try to connect Egyptians to African OUTLIERS like Somalis, or sell biologically meaningless concepts like "Authentic Africanity," but I don't buy any of it. The big picture, the broad pattern across multiple lines of evidence, is clearly evident: Egyptians were (are) related to Caucasoids, END OF STORY.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 26, 2005 14:03:45 GMT -5
A common party line for the black Egyptian race revisionists is that blacks come in all colors and shapes, and so just because the Egyptians don't look West-Central African doesn't mean they're not black.
Usually they cite finer-featured peoples like Somalis and elongated Fulanis as examples of blacks who don't have the stereotypical broad features (which is true). That's all well and good, however as far as I can tell the Egyptians in the murals don't look like Somalis/Fulanis either. They look more like Saharid Berbers or West Asians. And before I got involved in this race stuff, I always imagined the Egyptians as a Middle Eastern-looking people, practically indistinguishable from Arabs. I think most everyone else did (or still does), too. Is that the product of Eurocentrism (kind of a misnomer, as no one's saying they looked like Europeans) or is that just the common sense interpretation based on the murals?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Dec 26, 2005 14:10:48 GMT -5
Bottom line here. You asked for more than one line of evidence that connects Egyptians with Caucasoids. I presented results from four lines of physical anthropology that group Ancient Egyptians in a broad cluster with North Africans and West Eurasians, and separated from the main cluster of sub-Saharan Africans: craniometric (Brace) cranial non-metric (Hanihara et al., 2003) dental non-metric (Irish) dental metric (Hanihara & Ishida, 2005) You can try to dance around all of that, or argue about minor details of the aforementioned studies, or try to connect Egyptians to African OUTLIERS like Somalis, or sell biologically meaningless concepts like "Authentic Africanity," but I don't buy any of it. The big picture, the broad pattern across multiple lines of evidence, is clearly evident: Egyptians were (are) related to Caucasoids, END OF STORY. I see you skated around the new study pubslished recently by Brace and still spam the old study.
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 26, 2005 14:30:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 26, 2005 14:57:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Dec 26, 2005 14:58:39 GMT -5
And how are we supposed to read those?
|
|
|
Post by decadence on Dec 26, 2005 14:59:58 GMT -5
And how are we supposed to read those? Just click on the maps and read. The samples in the maps posted are different
|
|