Tropical Limbs Proportions of Ancient Egyptians Revisted

[Shadow]

Hello everyone, long time no see. I recently encountered an anti-Afrocentric website that supposedly brought out problems with studies on the AEs limb proportions. The website basically listed each study that reaffirm the same findings. The basis of this website is that all of these studies based their data on a study done by Trotter & Gleser (1958). This website claims that this particular study had its defaults and is basically useless in affirming the limb proportions of AEs specimen. I have concerns over this because usually this is one of substantial proofs that proves the AEs physical African affinities and this doesn't sit well for me. Basically, I glimpse at some of the website's content on this and the studies the website used to challenged Trotter & Gleser (1958), Robin, Zakrzeweski, etc. Here are the studies that are used:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/oa.740

www.researchgate.net/publication/309165380_Caveats_in_Using_Trotter_and_Gleser's_1958_Asian_Equations_for_Stature_Estimation

www.academia.edu/19608037/An_Exploration_of_Adult_Body_Shape_and_Limb_Proportions_at_Kellis_2_Dakhleh_Oasis_Egypt

As you can see, two of these studies are heavily embedded on the issues with Trotter & Gleser, whereas the first study puts holes at the issues of AEs body plans at certain locations. What I'm interested in is to get the veteran posters opinions on the validity of these posted studies and see where they stand in actually challenging our claims. Btw, here's the website if anyone is interested in getting a grasp of the content: iwuzkang.wordpress.com/2019/04/17/robin-and-chutes-tropically-adapted-super-negroids/

[kel]

oh boy..........

www.academia.edu/1921955/Book_Egypt_in_its_African_Context

the 'Ancient Egyptians' are:

indigenous black Africans with phenotype variability reflecting their origins as a convergence of a variety of African populations: 'Chadic, Nilotic, Niger-Congo, Cushitic, (Saharan)

OR

indigenous black Africans with phenotype variability reflecting their origins as a convergence of a variety of Nile River Valley Basin populations

[Shadow]

The latter scenario is more plausible considering that the main peopling of the Nile Valley were Afrasan, Nilotic, & Saharan populations. But regardless, I'm more interested the posters thoughts on these studies that are used to suggest that the Ancient Egyptians tropical body plans can't be supported.

[kel]

Lets not deal in opinions that is why I posted the link to the " Egypt in its African Context". Therefore no need speculate as to plausibility.

As you can the see the source of the main artery of the Nile is the Uganda area. i.e. Tropical Africa. The drainage area also includes places such as Rwanda, Burundi, Central African Republic, Congo, and Southern Sudan. This is how we know that so called Niger Congo populations were part of the mix that made up Egypt. As Sir E Wallis Budge stated

"The primitive home of the people who invented these words lay far to the south of Egypt, and all that we know of the Predynastic Egyptians suggest that it was in the neighborhood of the Great Lakes, probably to the east of them...the Ancient Egyptians were Africans, and they spoke an African language..."
--EW Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, pp lxvii-lxix

Budge's works also further explain that Osirian Religion and many other gods such as Bes - a pygmy - have tropical African origins.

How does this relate to your issue re Tropical Body Plans ? Well it answers any issues any one may have.

The answer to the question of the identity of the AEs is multidisciplinary and multifactored. Therefore any one focusing on one issue alone in isolation from all the other issues is probably ignorant of the issues or engaging in lazy scholarship or has some other agenda afoot.

The fields used is constructing population identity and history are:

Genetics, Archaeology, Anthropology, Craniometrics, Morphology, Linguistics, Dentition,
Known History,

The proper answers to questions lie in the convergence of the disciplines where they agree.

Therefore based on evidence and not opinions, the AEs are:

"indigenous black Africans with phenotype variability reflecting their origins as a convergence of a variety of African populations: 'Chadic, Nilotic, Niger-Congo, Cushitic, (Saharan)"

OR

"indigenous black Africans with phenotype variability reflecting their origins as a convergence of a variety of Nile River Valley Basin populations"

We must remember that the formal state and culture emerge from the South. And yes we can consider the areas northeast as Afrasan as Keita does and so those people would have been as studies on the Natufian demonstrate -African/Afrodescended populations.

[zarahan]

Data on AE limb proportions go back to the 1800s, and published studies show up not only
in the 1950s, but subsequently well into the 2000s, as already well documented on Reloaded,
ES and elsewhere. This data is routine scientific stuff and has little to do with any "centrism."
So right off the bat the "too much influence by Trotter and Gleeser" argument is a strawman,
that has already failed. No one here is going to spoon feed would be "rebuttalists" the details
already documented, they can do the research themselves, but the following quick summary will suffice:


Failure #1: AE limb proportion evidence rests on much more than 1950s stature estimations of Trotter and Gleeser.
The fact that would be "rebuttalists" dodge mentioning the many other studies in substantial detail just highlights
the obvious weakness in their approach. On this point alone many of their arguments fail.


Failure #2: The first supposed "rebuttal" study listed above has to do with stature estimation using limb
proportions, and does not deal with tropical African versus European comparisons as to AE origins and such.
It is always possible to find skeletons in the modern era for which exact stature measurements can be made
and use them against the estimates of stature from some ancient AE remains thousands of years older. But
all this shows is that Trotter and Gleeser needs additional refinement and care doing height or
stature estimates based on gender, etc. It does not invalidate Trotter and Gleeser overall which is still
a standard in the field. Trotter and Gleser 1950s however are not essential to establish the well
documented AE tropical limb proportions evidence.


Failure #3: The next supposed "rebuttal" has again to do with applying Trotter's formula to
certain Asian populations like Koreans. Various limitations are noted as to broad formula use
and use as far as pining down stature based on gender. But again, neither does this deal with
the central issues of African versus European limb patterns re AE and so on. These patterns have nothing
to do with "Afrocentrism" - scientists noted them as a matter of course, as part of their
routine scientific work.


Failure #4: The next supposed rebuttal up to bat is the Dakleh Oasis study, long noted on ES and Reloaded.
As has been pointed out before, Dakleh is a late period site from the Roman era when the AE population
was more mixed. Hence it is a snapshot of a small ROMAN era area with a mixed population, coming over
a thousand of years after the classic AE samplings. As such it is not representative and does not
substantially deal with key issues at hand. Thus using Daklkeh to deny or downplay the clear evidence is
yet another failure. The LATE period mixed nature of Dahkleh is itself noted by the same study, 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 flow from
Southern Europe and/or the Near East, body shape in the Kellis 2 sample may show greater variation
than expected.“
--Beluze et al. 2014. An Exploration of Adult Body Shape and Limb Proportions at Kellis 2, Dakhleh Oasis,
Egypt. AJPA 153(3): 496-505





That's three at bat, plus one extra- but still failure. They still out...