|
Post by olehint on Jul 12, 2010 1:56:15 GMT -5
Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski * Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK Abstract Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. So if I'm reading this correctly, it means that both groups had tropical limb ratios regardless of the fact that there were two craniofacial measurements in Upper and Lower Egypt. Is there anyone who would disagree with this perspective? If so please explain why. sorry, I don't have the whole article, but this abstract here doesn't seem to talk about differences between upper and lower, my bad
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Jul 13, 2010 9:06:20 GMT -5
Is there data on pre-dynastic northern and southern Egyptians presented here that I do not see? If so, please post the relevant supportive quotes. Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski * Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK Abstract Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. So if I'm reading this correctly, it means that both groups had tropical limb ratios regardless of the fact that there were two craniofacial measurements in Upper and Lower Egypt. Is there anyone who would disagree with this perspective? If so please explain why.
|
|
|
Post by nabilali on Nov 25, 2010 13:01:10 GMT -5
A DNA study by Cruciani that focused on the Y chromosome E-M78 revealed that it was ’born’ in North East Africa , not East Africa as previously thought. This means, that an Egyptian with an m78 Y chromosome has had a male line ancestry reaching back to the Pleistocene inhabitants of Egypt; as far back as the Halfan culture about 24,000 years ago.
Southern Egyptians Y Chromomses are mainly native to Africa, both sub and supra Saharan. This makes a grand total of 80.3% definitively African non-Arab ancestry in the upper Egypt region. Y chromosomes possibly attributable to Arab males are very much in the minority in this area. A rough estimate (since no women invaded Egypt) is that about 5% or less of this population are from non dynastic Egyptian peoples, and not all of these would be Arabs.
Northern Egyptians are a bit more cosmopolitan in their ancestry 64.8% indigenous African. About 20% of the Y chrom0somes are near Eastern in origin, and 10.5 % are R Y chromosomes. However, some of these near eastern and European Y chromosomes show an ancient entry to Africa (G, K2, R1, R1b are 8,000 BP and older) and any historical contribution from foreign men is more likely to be in the 15% area. Divided by two (no recent female contribution to speak of). This makes non-dynastic Egyptian population around the 7% mark in Lower Egypt; and only some of this is Arab.
and as an Egyptian it does not matter to me all of that, because we know who we are and we do not like being in a defensive position against both Euro and Afro-centrics.
|
|
|
Post by near on Feb 24, 2011 23:29:20 GMT -5
Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski * Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK Abstract Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. So if I'm reading this correctly, it means that both groups had tropical limb ratios regardless of the fact that there were two craniofacial measurements in Upper and Lower Egypt. Is there anyone who would disagree with this perspective? If so please explain why. Yes. Here are some clearer quotes from the study: "The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." From the above, you have the Egyptians having longer limb proportions than in many African populations, hence the term "super Negroid body plan" or "super tropical body plans". Further, Zakrzewski states that all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations (even though the Badarian did have some form of growth inhibition as noted by Zakrzewski "pattern suggests that the Badarian sample may have suffered from some degree of growth inhibition. " These limb proportions group them with tropical Africans, even northern Egyptians: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54 "Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans" Further, Keita found the Upper Egyptians to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptians throughout the dynastic period: "The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.) **Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series. And then, Keita concludes with: This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occurred, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. **The early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archeological data also support this position, which is not new.** Hope this helped.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Feb 26, 2011 1:43:21 GMT -5
Yes this did help, and is pretty much what I've been trying to explain to folks for a long tim. But when you do, ou find yourself in the position of pissing off Afro supremacists, Eurocentrics and the Coptic Nazis alike. Everyone wants their Egypt fantasy, very few want the truth. So if I'm reading this correctly, it means that both groups had tropical limb ratios regardless of the fact that there were two craniofacial measurements in Upper and Lower Egypt. Is there anyone who would disagree with this perspective? If so please explain why. Yes. Here are some clearer quotes from the study: "The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." From the above, you have the Egyptians having longer limb proportions than in many African populations, hence the term "super Negroid body plan" or "super tropical body plans". Further, Zakrzewski states that all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations (even though the Badarian did have some form of growth inhibition as noted by Zakrzewski "pattern suggests that the Badarian sample may have suffered from some degree of growth inhibition. " These limb proportions group them with tropical Africans, even northern Egyptians: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54 "Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans" Further, Keita found the Upper Egyptians to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptians throughout the dynastic period: "The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.) **Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series. And then, Keita concludes with: This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occurred, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. **The early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archeological data also support this position, which is not new.** Hope this helped.
|
|
|
Post by mendeman on Apr 5, 2012 11:07:58 GMT -5
Yes this did help, and is pretty much what I've been trying to explain to folks for a long tim. But when you do, ou find yourself in the position of pissing off Afro supremacists, Eurocentrics and the Coptic Nazis alike. Everyone wants their Egypt fantasy, very few want the truth. Yes. Here are some clearer quotes from the study: "The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." From the above, you have the Egyptians having longer limb proportions than in many African populations, hence the term "super Negroid body plan" or "super tropical body plans". Further, Zakrzewski states that all samples lie clustered together as compared to other populations (even though the Badarian did have some form of growth inhibition as noted by Zakrzewski "pattern suggests that the Badarian sample may have suffered from some degree of growth inhibition. " These limb proportions group them with tropical Africans, even northern Egyptians: Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation(Paperback) by Barry Kemp (Author) Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54 "Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans" Further, Keita found the Upper Egyptians to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptians throughout the dynastic period: "The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an early ancestral group, by drift and gene exchange with the Near East. (This however, would not negate their lineage relationship with southerners.) **Later**, depending on "starting" orientation, the **dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow and micro-adaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972).** Making a neat north/south "racial" division in dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically unsound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These racial terms are unnecessary. The variability in the population in Upper Egypt increased, as its isolation decreased, with increasing social complexity of southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992). The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally on Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primarily due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. **The Lower Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of the various northern Europeans and West African and Khoisan series. And then, Keita concludes with: This review has addressed several issues regarding the biological affinities of the ancient inhabitants of the northern Nile Valley. The morphological metric, morphometric, and nonmetric studies demonstrate immense overlap with tropical variants. General scholars must understand that a "shift in paradigm" from "Negro"-only-as-African has occurred, just as Nordic-only-as-European was never accepted. Actually, it was always biologically wrong to view the Broad phenotype as representative of the only authentic "African," something understood by some nineteenth century writers. **The early Nile Valley populations are best viewed as part of an African descent group or lineage with tropical adaptations and relationships. This group is highly variable, as would be expected. Archeological data also support this position, which is not new.** Hope this helped. The article explains 1. The original inhabitants of Upper and Lower Egypt were African and group with Sub Saharan Africans. 2. At some point via admixture the population in the north changed. This does not negate the fact that Ancient Egypt, its culture, government, language, religion are African. It started in the South, specifically in Qustul in Northern Sudan and worked its way up. It would be like a African American claiming their culture helped shape the language, government, and religion of the Untied States of American. When I speak of language, I am speaking of its proper use, not of slang vernacular. Those Arabs in the North can not lay claim to ancient Egypt unless they are willing to admit their lineage, some where down the line, was black African. You can't have it both ways. But from a historical standpoint. Egypt brought in slaves from the middle east as early as the fifth dynasty and most were settled in the North. Then you have the Hyksos which were later driven out (they may or may not have been 100% Caucasoid/Semitic of some sort). Then you have inflows of Greeks and Romans, then later Arabs, Turks, french, British and European slaves i.e. the Mameluke. So for anyone to try and give northerners any credit for being a part of the material culture of ancient Egypt is for that person to admit they know nothing of history. Also, look at the language, the language doesn't show loan words from outside of Africa. The ancient culture showed africanisms that can NOT be explains by outsiders. Now I know some believe in silly things like Evolution but Evolution does not explain the current northern population. How can evolution explain black skinned (dark I mean) northern Egyptians along side tan and pure white looking northern Egyptians? What evolution would cause such a divergence in one population who are all subject to the same geographic forces. Looking at these reports are good but if you do not understand history and African culture then they will be lost on you.
|
|
|
Post by Ausaremka on Apr 8, 2012 9:28:35 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_bxm_SOAiU&feature=relmfu go 8:30 into this video and continue to part 2 ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8P36dynyU4&feature=relmfuThis is why at times I can not fully agree with these studies to say "Oh there were other groups than Africans that made up the Egyptian culture" argument. UNESCO scholars will lie and it takes someone well endowed with truth to correct them and they will still hang on to a lie. Eye witness account from real scholars Herodutus or Homer or etc... any of the Europeans, who had to renew the respect for their Gods and pay taxes to early KMT, give the proper description of the blacks who were there and correct any small descrepencies that may be called or attributed to another culture other than black people. "His head was much bigger and so he must be NEGRO" or "His fingers are long and his lips are big but his nose is to small to be an African" arguments like these go away, because as you can physically see differences between the Ghanaian, Somolian, Sudan, and Zulu or Xhosa.... clear facial differences and body type changes.... they are all black. KMT people called themselves black and even Ahmose & Khamose used Nubian warriors to assist in the expelling of the Asiatics.
|
|
|
Post by Ausaremka on Apr 8, 2012 18:17:26 GMT -5
|
|