No difference between Egyptians and Nubians?

[djoser-xyyman]

A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley – K Godde July 2018

Abstract
The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time. This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos **maintained **genetic similarity among the populations.


To those who can read the ancient Egyptian text…is this true? We know Europeans lie and spin. Was there a difference and adversarial events between Nubians and Egyptians? Some of the old guards on here like Sage? And Wally etc mentioned that there was no difference between Nubians and Egyptians

Quote:
“In 2005, Keita proffered a novel method to view Nubian-Egyptian relationships; he suggested that military interactions could not alone account for the biological similarities among the two populations. Rather, Keita (2005) saw the relationship as a continuum, dating back to the late Pleistocene and mid-Holocene, placing importance on the peopling of the Nile Valley as the initial cause for genetic similarity. Linguistic family dispersals, environmental pressures, and other sociopolitical events were tied to occupation and subsequent affinity.

Moreover, the military provided opportunity for contact as Nubians were mercenaries in the Egyptian army and the Egyptian army fought against Nubians (Trigger, 1976).”

[kel]

no real difference at all between the two............

[djoser-xyyman]

Burials in a cemetery at el-Kurru, which spans through the building of first pyramids of the kings of Napata, hold similarities with mid-second
millennium BCE elite burials, thus potentially dating them to the Late Kerma period (Edwards, 2004). Moreover, one of the early
tumuli from el-Kurru date to approximately mid-second millennium BCE (Edwards, 2004) and burials at Tombos date to 1400 BCE
(Smith and Buzon, 2014) providing further evidence of the movement of the Kerma Nubians areas further south.


To describe Predynastic Egypt, one must tell of the independent development of two regions, Lower (represented by
Naqada) and Upper (e.g., Maadi-Buto), whose political, social, and material remains are distinctive. Little is known about the
transition from small agricultural groups to political unification (Bard, 1994), as the archaeological record is limited primarily to
cemeteries and grave goods in Upper Egypt (Bard, 1992; Savage, 2001) and the reverse in Lower Egypt (Savage, 2001). Thus,
knowledge of this pivotal time is constrained by mortuary contexts that are not necessarily representative of the great society in
Upper Egypt. Despite this limitation, much has been derived from what remains and theorized into the greater context of state
formation in Egypt.
Three models have been put forth to explain the sociopolitical unification of the north and south that have drastically different
genetic implications. The assimilation model (Buchez and Midant-Reynes, 2011) states that a “Naqadization” of the north (originally
hypothesized by Kaiser (1957)) where the southern Egyptian groups migrated to the north and engaged in military conquest, leading
to genetic swamping of the north by the south, was not necessarily the mechanism for cultural and political unification during the
Predynastic period. Instead, the assimilation model posits Lower Egypt adopted cultural practices of Naqada willingly from contact
between the two regions, which would eliminate the need for mass migrations and conquest (Buchez and Midant-Reynes, 2011).
Similarly, the interactionist model proffers that the north and south are one culture, with different regional variations, whose similarities
are a result of their socioeconomic relationship (Köhler, 1995, 2008). The assimilation and interaction models are supported
by archaeological evidence (c.f., Buchez and Midant-Reynes, 2011; Köhler, 1995, 2008) and biological evidence modeled from
Predynastic groups (Keita and Godde, 2016).


A recent article that examined the genetics of Egyptian mummies suggests great early
contact with the Near East near this formative time (Schuenemann et al., 2017), but the results must be viewed with caution as only
151 individuals from a single site were examined, and thus making broad conclusions across Egyptians as an entire population is
premature.


xyyman comment: Seems like even this author did not realize that ONLY 3 mummies were analyzed and published for their autosomes. I tell you man, Europeans can spin. Even this author got faked out! As for the haplogroups the Abusir were mostly related to …you guess it!….Nubians!(Sudanese).



With these major events in mind (lack of hiatuses, potentially peaceful political unification), this study seeks to investigate Keita’s
(2005) model from modern interpretations of Y-chromosome data through cranial nonmetric data. Concurrently, this paper will
analyze certain sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural events that would have shaped Egyptian and Nubian population
history. It is hypothesized that Keita’s model using a modern perspective will be supported through the close relationship of Nubian
and Egyptian groups extending back to the Mesolithic in Nubia, and the genetic composition of the samples will be reflective of their
respective histories. This hypothesis was constructed from the patterns found in earlier work (Godde, 2004, 2009a, 2009b, 2010,
2013a, 2013b, 2018) as the best model to describe the variation and changes found in the Nile Valley. To meet these goals, an
investigation using biological distance analyses, among other measures of population structure, is completed, which focuses on
variation between samples and measures the relationship of samples to one another



xyyman comment: Are they saying here that the ruling elite of ancient Egypt were Nubians?

Quote:
“For example, a **closer** affinity has been detected of the wealthy Nubian A-Group **to **elite Egyptians than elite Egyptians were to other Egyptians (Prowse and Lovell, 1996). At Tombos in Lower Nubia, long term Egyptian occupation led to homogenization of the two different populations over the Napatan period (Smith and Buzon, 2014). Smith and Buzon (2014) describe peaceful interactions that likely led to the biological similitude formed over time.”

[djoser-xyyman]

With these major events in mind (lack of hiatuses, potentially peaceful political unification), this study seeks to investigate Keita’s
(2005) model from modern interpretations of Y-chromosome data through cranial nonmetric data. Concurrently, this paper will
analyze certain sociopolitical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural events that would have shaped Egyptian and Nubian population
history. It is hypothesized that Keita’s model using a modern perspective will be supported through the close relationship of Nubian
and Egyptian groups extending back to the Mesolithic in Nubia, and the genetic composition of the samples will be reflective of their
respective histories. This hypothesis was constructed from the patterns found in earlier work (Godde, 2004, 2009a, 2009b, 2010,
2013a, 2013b, 2018) as the best model to describe the variation and changes found in the Nile Valley. To meet these goals, an
investigation using biological distance analyses, among other measures of population structure, is completed, which focuses on
variation between samples and measures the relationship of samples to one another.

[djoser-xyyman]

A total of 18 Nubian and Egyptian groups (n=1846 individuals) were analyzed, representing temporally, culturally, and/or
geographically distinct groups (Table 1; Fig. 1). These data were originally collected by the author (available upon request), provided
to the author (by Dr. Tsunehiko Hanihara and Dr. Nancy Lovell), or were published (Strouhal and Jungwirth, 1984). Seven nonmetric
traits, distributed across the cranium, were common among all the samples: tympanic dehiscence (TD), precondylar tubercle (PCT),
supraorbital foramen (SOF), accessory infraorbital foramen (AIOF), ossicle at lambda (OL), parietal notch bone (PNB), and asterionic
bone (ASB). The number of traits was limited due to the antiquity and state of the Mesolithic remains, whose fragmented nature
prevented many nonmetric traits from being observed.

[djoser-xyyman]

Quote:

Results
The clustering of samples did not suggest a trend by observer on either the X- or Y-axis; the relationship of the samples make sense in
light of population history, geography, and/or time. The biological distance matrix (Table 2) demonstrates the smallest biological
distances, which indicate a closer affiliation, are between Kerma and Gizeh, as well as Kerma and Lisht.

In sum, then, there is a north-south gradient in these data. The samples did not cluster exclusively by
population, although the Egyptians tended to group towards the center with the Nubians plotted on the periphery of the upper parts
of the graph.

[djoser-xyyman]

Quote:
“The close relationship of Badari, Naqada, and Kerma present in several studies (e.g., Godde, 2009a; Keita, 1990; Nutter, 1958)
was not detectable here. The addition of a number of Nubian samples not included in prior work allowed a different depiction of the
nature of the relationship of Kerma to the Predynastic samples to come to light, and which is in line with their shared population
history. Thousands of years separate the Predynastic and Kerma samples, which, in combination with gene flow, will act as a
homogenizing force (Konigsberg, 1990; c.f., Godde, 2009a), so it is possible that gene flow from later Egyptian groups led to an
affinity among the Predynastic Egyptians and people from Kerma and explains why there is still a close relationship present in the
PCO graph. However, under a model of population history, later northern Egyptians should also cluster more closely with southern
Predynastic groups than with Nubians. When taking into account the peaceful interactions of the assimilation (Buchez and Midant-
Reynes, 2011) and interaction (Köhler, 1995, 2008) models, it is anticipated the northern and southern Egyptians should be closely
related. In that vein, it is expected that the Gizeh, Lisht, Cairo, and Coptic samples would plot more closely to the Badari and Naqada
groups, which is true of Gizeh (Last Dynastic Period), Lisht (Middle Kingdom), and the Coptic group. Cairo is more remotely located
on the plot, probably related to higher levels of genetic drift/low amounts of gene flow, but there is nothing to suggest that its
distance is evidence of anything more than a composite sample including individuals from Omdurman about which little information
is known. The skeletal differences between Predynastic and Early Dynastic samples have been viewed as markedly profound in the
past, causing scholars to hypothesize a foreign population had entered the area and were in place during the Early Dynastic (e.g.,
Derry, 1956). There are documented cranial differences between the Predynastic and later Egyptians, however, in this analysis,
within group variation was not high in the Predynastic and Lisht (closest sample to post-date the Predynastic) samples and, while
they did not plot adjacent to each other, there is **nothing to indicate** in the PCO plot the intrusion of a foreign group. Instead, it
appears the Predynastic were likely adapted to a harsher, earlier environment and resource acquisition and the later Egyptians to the
lifeways afforded by their civilization. Badari and Naqada still plotted adjacent to one another, which also makes sense spatially
(Upper Egypt) and temporally (Predynastic), and is consistent with craniometric assessment of Predynastic groups (Keita and Godde,
2016).
Small biological distances were found between Kerma and Gizeh and Kerma and Lisht, three samples that were internally
homogeneous, and are expected considering the history of contact between Egypt and Nubia. During the C-Group (a Middle Horizon
Nubian contemporary with Lisht from the Middle Kingdom), Egypt occupied Lower Nubia (where the C-Group was located). “

[djoser-xyyman]

Quote:
“The knowledge gained from this paper contributes to the overall body of literature on Egyptian and Nubian relationships. It
supports much in the archaeological literature, making it an important confirmation of the archaeology and a different source of
corroboratory evidence. Naturally, bias may have affected some of these results as they may be spurious and/or related to the
common environment these populations share, leading to similar adaptations in each. Moreover, small sample size in a few samples
(n < 30) may have caused these results to be not necessarily fully reflective of individuals at the sites/time periods represented.
However, as these are archaeological samples and in these cases no further material exists for these particular sites/time periods, the
Samples should not be ignored, and rather interpreted with caution. Other studies (e.g., Bedrick et al., 2000; Konigsberg, 1990) have
successfully used similar sample sizes and/or number of variables using the same biological distance statistic, and so this study joins
them with similar trait and sample size restrictions.”
”

[zarahan]

Good find. Missed this thread. Yeah the 2 people were distinct but closely related. Even the
Biblical narrative suggests it, for Lud, they "who handle the bow", are descendants of Mizraim
(Egypt) in Moses Genesis narrative. "Lud" appears several times, often referencing archers,
which ties in historically with the famed archery of some Nubians.

But anyway- here's a limb proportion item re Nubians..

A tropical people, African-American limb proportions have long been used as a proxy to study height and stature of ancient Egyptian populations, who cluster closer to the Americans than Europeans and other groups. Extended to Nubians in a recent study, results are the same. Though distant in time and space, the Black Americans, ancient Egyptians and ancient Nubians cluster together- indices with some differences- overall, the closest fit.




"Stature is a component of the biological profile along with age, sex, and ancestry. In bioarchaeological contexts, changes in stature or body proportions over time can indicate trends in the health of a population. However, stature regression equations are likely to be inaccurate when applied to populations temporally and geographically distant from their reference sample. This study tested the accuracy of previously published regression equations on a well-preserved medieval Nubian collection and hypothesized that stature would be significantly overestimated. The study sample was drawn from a skeletal collection representing three Upper Nubian medieval cemeteries (300-1500AD) excavated by the British Museum along the Fourth Cataract in Sudan - sites 3-J-10, 3-J-11, and 4-M-142. Based on preservation of required skeletal elements, living stature was calculated for 36 males and 33 females using the revised Fully method (Raxter et al. 2006).These data were compared to point estimates from regression equations for modern American blacks (Trotter and Gleser 1952) and ancient Egyptians (Raxter et al. 2008). Although distant in both time and space, these groups represented the closest proxies for Nubians among previously published studies..

Results indicated significant differences between both sets of estimates and the Fully revised method living statures (p<0.001). Both Trotter and Gleser (1952) and Raxter (2008) equations overestimated living stature in this sample of medieval Nubians. These results confirmed the need for new stature regression equations for males and females in this region and time period. Equations were then developed using single and multiple long bone measurements.. The results of the one-way t-test confirm the hypothesis: American black and Ancient Egyptian stature regression equations systematically overestimate height in medieval Nubians by an average of 1.72-2.16cm. However, the results of the ANOVA suggest that the resulting point stature estimates are not significantly different from the revised Fully statures."
--Niespodziewanski Streetman, Emily (2014). Testing stature equations on a medieval Upper Nubian skeletal sample. Mich State Univ. 83 AnnMt AJPA 2014