|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Feb 6, 2015 19:23:51 GMT -5
I find using the 4W’s helpfull in analyzing research papers presented by academics. Here is an example. From - An Exploration of Adult Body Shape and Limb Proportions at Kellis 2, Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt - Michele M. Bleuze,1* Sandra M. Wheeler,2 2014 The 4 W’s WHEN2014 – this is very new. Written in 2014 WHO- M Bleuze and Sandra Wheeler. I am not as versed in anthropology as I am with genetics. So these names don’t ring a bell. I am very much familiar with Holliday, Trenton, Bergman and Allen. These guys…I don’t know their politics WHAT- The premise They are comparing anthropometrics? ie bone measurement amongst African groups (including AEians) to very Allen-Bergman rule and discredit previous researchers for classifying AEians as “super Negroid’ and Establish where the population of Kellis 2 (in Sudan/Egypt) area fall into. Where – did they pull samples. Northern Europe(Britain) – 1000AD Southern Europe Balkans) – 1000AD Kellis 2 – 500AD Ancient Egypt – 3000BC Lower Nubia – 500BC Upper Nubia – 1500BC East Africans – 1900AD West African – 1900AD  |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Feb 6, 2015 19:30:53 GMT -5
how do you analyze the data?
look at the males for Brachial Index. The index for all Africans is >78.50, Europeans are about 75.2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on Dec 5, 2015 5:47:18 GMT -5
Ancient Kellis, now known as Ismant el-Kharab (Ismant the ruined), was a village in Upper Egypt during the Roman Period. It was located about 2.5 kilometers (1.6 mi) east-southeast of present-day Ismant in the Dakhleh Oasis, and about 11 kilometers (6.8 mi) northeast of Mut (more fully Mut el-Kharab), which is the capital of the oasis.[1] In ancient times, Mut was called Mothis, and thus Kellis was in the Mothite nome.[2]
Structures
The village was 1,050 meters (3,440 ft) long and 650 meters (2,130 ft) wide, built almost entirely of mud brick on a low terrace with wadis to the southeast and northwest, and surrounded by fields.[3] Small businesses included weaving, handcrafted pottery and blacksmithing. Attractions in Kellis included the Temple of Tutu and three churches; the Small East Church is the oldest known church building in Egypt. The site was occupied from the late Ptolemaic Period, was abandoned sometime after the year 392, and has remained unoccupied since then, except for a time in the 1940s, when some Bedouin camped there.[4][5] Many buildings are buried beneath the sand. The tops of some are visible from the surface; others are hidden, waiting to collapse as an unwary tourist crosses.
Excavation
Archaeological exploration of Kellis began in 1986. Since 1991 the Kellis excavations have been funded by the Australian Research Council, administered by Monash University.[6] Thousands of writing fragments have been unearthed at Kellis, many pertaining to the ancient religion called Manichaeism, whose adherents at Kellis apparently lived alongside Christians in ancient times.[7] Archeologists at Kellis have also found wooden books, glass vessels, tools, other domestic items, as well as cemeteries.[8]
--A Wiki disclaimer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on Dec 6, 2015 5:37:50 GMT -5
how do you analyze the data? look at the males for Brachial Index. The index for all Africans is >78.50, Europeans are about 75.2. That is indeed ironic, considering their "politics" onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22450/abstractThey obviously try to overshadow the fact of tropical limb ratios, which has been verified by many studies overtime. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on Dec 6, 2015 6:17:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on Dec 6, 2015 6:20:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 6, 2015 22:26:56 GMT -5
Ish Gabor/Patrol says: A variety of textual and pictorial sources demonstrate that the inhabitants of Dakhleh Oasis were considered different from the people who lived in the Nile Valley. The archaeological pro le of this oasis, however, displays nothing that is identi able as non-Egyptian. This paper discusses why such an evidentiary inconsistency exists by examining contextual issues that contribute to the manifestation of identity in the archaeological record. Current theories on the identi cation of ancient identities are adapted to what is known of Dakhleh Oasis to demon- strate that the lack of non-Egyptian material culture does not necessarily equate to a population in Dakhleh Oasis that is homogeneous with the Nile Valley.
----------------------------------------
The Nile Valley, Dakhleh Oasis and the Oasis-dwellers
The community of ancient Egypt comprised peoples who shared a common language and culture, who were ruled by a divine royal lineage and who occupied rigidly-de ned territories centred around the Nile Valley and Delta regions (Kemp 2006: 20). The Egyptians de ned these ‘black lands’ of Kmt by the fertile soils of the Nile oodplains and they contrasted both the dSrt, the red desert that anked them, and x3st, the hills and mountains beyond (Gardiner 1950: 562, 569, 584; Sethe 1920). When written with a three-hill determinative, the term x3st was also used to denote foreign lands. A recognised Egyptian identity was not based solely on ethnic homogeneity but an individual’s adaptiveness to an Egyptian way of life and the degree to which they were willing to participate in society (Baines 1996: 343-344, 361-363; Baines and Yoffee 2000: 15; Assmann 1996: 80). Non-Egyptians were those who, by ancient Egyptian standards, lived outside Kmt and did not accept the social, cultural and religious ideologies of traditionally-de ned Egyptian society (Baines 1996: 360; Panagiotopoulos 2005: 403).
The Western Desert of Egypt is approximately 681,000 km2 of arid, inhospitable desert. The five largest oases of the Western Desert are, from north to south, Siwa, Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhleh and Kharga (Fig. 1)
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 20 (2010): 51-66, doi:10.5334/pia.341
The material culture of Dakhleh oasis, as understood from the excavation of temple, settlement and cemetery sites, is homogeneous with that of the Nile Valley, displaying nothing identi ably non-Egyptian (Hope 2001: 29; Figs. 3a and 3b). Yet Egyptian textual and pictorial data present the oases of the Western Desert as foreign regions and the people who lived within them as different from the inhabitants of the Nile Valley. For example, a stela dated to Year 34 of the reign of the Middle Kingdom King Senwosret I was erected to commemorate the visit to Thebes of a man named Ikudidi (von Schäfer 1905). Although its provenance is unknown, Ikudidi’s claim that he ‘made this offering chapel at the terrace of the great god’ may indicate an Abydene origin (Simpson 1974: 13). The crude inscription reveals that Ikudidi travelled ‘to the land of the oasis-dwellers’ (von Schäfer 1905: 124) and considering the trip likely originated at Abydos or Thebes (modern Luxor), this region was most likely the southern oases of Kharga and Dakhleh (Limme 1973: 44 & no. 23; Simpson 1974: 6, 13; von Schäfer 1905: 126-127). This is the earliest known reference to oasis-dwellers on a document from the Nile Valley and it is signi cant that the region is categorised by the speci cally- differentiated people who lived there rather than merely its geography.
[...]
Panagiotopoulos (2005: 388) stresses that these scenes were created, not as graphic representations of the historical reality, but as decorative works of art. It is clear, however, that there was a desire to emphasise the distinctiveness and otherness of the oases and their inhabitants. Indeed, their appearance may have been exaggerated or even stereotyped to accentuate this difference. The people of the oases and all non-Egyptians functioned to demonstrate Egyptian superiority over all who were not of the Nile Valley (Giddy 1987: 76) and their depiction within these scenes as exotic subordinates was a way to signify their inferiority and lowly status in the hierarchical ideology of the Egyptian worldview.
As identity is sustained and reproduced as part of social processes, the pursuit of ancient identities as can be understood from material remains is not merely a facet of archaeological inquiry but an essential contribution to the overall purpose of archaeological enterprise. An appropriate and concise de nition is provided by Diaz-Andreu and Lucy (2005: 1): ‘identity will be understood as individuals’ identi cation with broader groups on the basis of differences socially sanctioned as different.’ Although a consensus of what cultural aspects contribute to the recognition of identity has yet to emerge, critical indicators seem to be very speci c (McGuire 1982: 174). Household architecture serves as a tool through which aspects of the daily ritual and behaviour may be understood (Emberling 1997: 325). Individual and group language, presentation of dress, jewellery and hair, religious and domestic rituals, the preparation and disposal of food and the tools used to prepare it and the choice of funerary architecture are also possible indicators (Jones 1996: 68; Lucy 2005: 91-101; Meskell 2007: 24-25; Tyson Smith 2003: 7). Identity differentiation may also be maintained by territorial, behavioural and/or ideological markers (Burgess 1978: 270; Eriksen 1991: 127). Despite the possibility that these categories do help to recognise identity, its dynamic and multifarious nature means that any attempt to de ne an ancient identity requires a situation-speci c and contextual understanding of the situation.
The discussion of identity in reference to archaeological enquiry is not a recent development (Jones 1996: 63-64). Traditional archaeological methods concerned with the identi cation of peoples have tended to focus on the distribution of material culture, which was seen as delineating the spatial distribution of a particular group (Lucy 2005: 86). It was assumed that peoples, be they designated as tribes, ethnic groups or races, correlated to uniform and identi able bounded cultural entities (Jones 1996: 63-64). In the 1960s and 1970s theories concerning cultural differentiation underwent a major shift. Terminology such as ‘ethnicity’ and ‘ethnic group’ replaced traditional markers of difference such as ‘race’ and ‘tribe’. This signalled the increased emphasis that was to be placed on understanding the nature of groups, particularly self-identi cation and group interaction (Jones 1996: 66). The recognition of difference for members of a shared social system and its intentional maintenance saw Barth (1969: 14) in his seminal work Ethnic Groups and Boundaries suggest that it is ‘the ethnic boundary that de nes the group, not the cultural stuff it encloses’ (his emphasis). With the advent of post-processualism in the 1980s the perception of ethnicity shifted towards the idea that it was part of a social process and was therefore relative, subjective and required an interpretative approach (Diaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005: 6; Jones 1996: 66-68).
In recent years, however, there has been movement away from the exclusive use of ethnicity as a means of discussing ancient identities. As a fundamentally subjective manner of categorisation de ned by the relationship and opposition to other ethnic identities, this usage appears more concerned with self-identi cation than the observations of objective parties (Jones 1997: 60-61, 64; Tyson Smith 2003: 6). Such an approach fails to account for limitations in the construction of these de nitions and requires the perpetual maintenance of the groups’ boundaries through the articulation of similarity and difference. This is particularly problematic when a person’s association with an identity is uid, susceptible to change and can be contextually-dependent and, indeed, when the individual has an af nity with more than one identity (Diaz-Andreu and Lucy 2005: 11; Jones 1996: 91).
A primary assumption underlying the culture historical approach is that bounded uniform cultural identities correlate with particular peoples, ethnic groups, tribes or races. When discussing peoples in antiquity in terms of their identity it is perhaps more constructive that ethnicity is examined as part of a larger system (Lucy 2005: 95-97). This approach, which is attempted in this article, aims to encompass features such as age, gender, status and ethnicity, moving away from an individualistic examination of these aspects (Diaz- Andreu and Lucy 2005: 9).
--Caroline Hubschmann
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Who Inhabited Dakhleh Oasis?
Searching for an Oasis Identity in Pharaonic Egypt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Excellent roundup Patrol. Some people are using such studies to desperately try to get around the hard data of tropical limb proportins of the Egyptians which link them with other tropical Africans- including African descended people like African Americans. You should post more on Reloaded. When you put stuff detailed over on ES, cross post to Reloaded, so that not only is your research preserved, but if ES goes down the info is not lost. And Reloaded is easier on the searching- things will not get buried as quickly as on ES. "Dead" or whatever troll name he is going under tried to use the Dakleh Oasis to downplay and dismiss those Africa links. But you add new info from other scholars showing you have a lot of NON Egyptians at Dakleh, LATE PERIOD besides, which skews the results and the foreign remains there are not representative of Egyptians. As was pointed out back then to debunk these claimants- "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 et al confirms the 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 with NON Egyptian mixes are nothing special." QUOTE: "However, given the socio-economic conditions
at Dakhleh during the Romano-Christian period and
the evidence that migrants to the Oasis likely
came from regions that experienced gene?ow from
Southern Europe and/or the Near East, body shape
in the Kellis 2 sample may show greater variation than expected." and- turns out the Egyptians have even MORE African body plans than other Africans: quote "The significant decrease in humerus length relative to ulna length between earlier and later groups suggested an increasingly African body plan over time (Zakrzewski, 2003). The Egyptian sample as a whole had longer distal limb segments relative to proximal limb segments within each limb compared with many African populations.." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. They are trying to distort the record and remove the scholarship above on Wikipedia as is typical of their deceptive and dishonest practices. But they fail miserably. We have the true data, and it is being posted worldwide for all to see here and elsewhere. So keep cross-posting more like this man. And if you aren't doing it already of course, save all your stuff in case it needs to be recreated.    |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 6, 2015 22:50:47 GMT -5
how do you analyze the data? look at the males for Brachial Index. The index for all Africans is >78.50, Europeans are about 75.2. Yep. And the Oasis is littered with LATE PERIOD and foreign samples, not representative of the dynastic civilization's inhabitants that preceded them by multiple centuries or even millennia. Some are trying to use southern European indexes to get around the data, but Africans can and do have limb proportion ranges that are low as well, not only high. Such is African diversity that Africans can do that. Its like skin coloring or narrow noses- "sub-Saharan" Africans can have a wide variety in either category without needing any "race mix" or outside "wandering Caucasoids" to explain that variation.  ^^Note the African crural index range drops as low as 82.8- which is BELOW/UNDER some European ranges. The low/diverse African range trumps the claim of so-called "European" patterns. Africans ALREADY match such patterns as part of their BUILT-IN diversity.  |
|
|
|
Post by amunratheultimate on Dec 6, 2015 23:03:04 GMT -5
Here's the full graph and samples origin (From Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample: Limb Proportion Evidence by T. W. Holliday* (2013):   We can see African populations including Ancient Egyptians and Kushites clustering on the top branch and Eurasian populations clustering on the bottom branch. |
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Dec 6, 2015 23:11:00 GMT -5
Indeed- good info.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on Dec 8, 2015 20:15:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on Jan 29, 2016 8:04:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Jan 30, 2016 23:12:52 GMT -5
Hmm interesting. As far an infanticide, mentioned above,we know the Romans and other
Europeans practiced it much more than the Egyptians. Indeed the Egyptians
were disturbed and shocked at the Roman and/or Greek practices involving
the killing of children. (Milner 2000 Hardness of heart)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Gebor on Feb 1, 2016 4:34:39 GMT -5
|
|
