Issues of methodology in skeletal studies of ancient Nile Valley populations
General methodological issues in skeletal studies fall into five groups:
--Inconsistent treatment of data on the Nile Valley peoples --Use of extreme types as "representative" of various peoples --Exclusion of data not meeting stereotypical ranges --Splitting of related populations --Labeling of populations in a manner that deemphasizes their local context
Inconsistency. Some historians question why the same broad approach used with European populations is not also applied to Negroes who also show dolichocephaly, and also vary in other physical indices. They argue that a double standard is in play, and that the use of such terms as "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern" conveniently allow more skeletal remains from the Nile Valley to be essentially classified as Caucasoid, even incorporating Ethiopians, as in the Mediterranean race theories of Giuseppè Sergi. It is argued that the same line is drawn much more narrowly in defining "Negroid."[1] Variable human remains (such as the aquiline features of some Northeast African peoples, or the rounded foreheads of many African peoples) are thus assigned to Caucasoid groupings. These are interpreted as broadly and expansively as possible with a bearing on Egypt, covering the range of the Mediterranean zone from Portugal, to Morocco, to parts of Turkey. By contrast, the variation in "Negroids" is carefully defined in a much narrower sense as regards the Nile Valley. This inconsistent use of categories and definitions (broad Caucasian -- narrow Negro), it is held, downplays the Nilo-Saharan and Sudanic roots of the Egyptian gene pool. [2]
Use of stereotypical "true negro" types. Modern re-analyses of previous studies shows a clear tendency deny or minimize variability within the ancient Egyptian population.[3], As far as Negroid elements, this takes the form of establishing a baseline determination for a "true negro" (generally a sub-Saharan type) and anything not closely matching this extreme type is disregarded or incorporated into a Caucasoid or "Mediterranean" cluster. Conversely the same selective classification scheme is not applied to groups traditionally categorized as Caucasoid. Scholars such as Carelton Coons report "Mediterranean" remains that seem to have "Negroid" traits but do not mention the opposite, nor have scholars generally bothered to define a similarly stereotypical "true white."[4] According to one 2005 review:
"The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity."[5] Exclusion of data not meeting stereotypical ranges. Older documentation shows researchers repeatedly excluding or minimizing certain skeletal remains in formulating approaches to the ancient Nile Valley people (See Berry and Ucko above) This pattern still occurs sometimes in contemporary analyses according to some scholars (Kittles and Keita 1997, Armelagos 2005, et. al. - see DNA section below). As regards older skeletal research for example:
"Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign.].."[6]
Splitting of related Nile Valley groups. Some anthropologists maintain that these methods still continue with the use of more modern statistical aggregation techniques based on crania or on dental morphology. They include selective frontloading of measured indices to minimize variability, using the stereotypical "true" sub-Saharan type as a basis for comparison, separating out adjacent Nile Valley and Northeast African populations like Ethiopians and Somalians, and grouping all else not meeting the extreme sub-Saharan type into broad Caucasoid clusters, although such clustering may be given different names like "North African", "Middle Eastern" or "Southwest Asian". (The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, 1997)[7]
Lumping under Mediterranean clusters and labels. Re-analyses of scholarship show a clear tendency to lump remains under broad clusters or categories such as Mediterranean. Numerous studies of Egyptian crania have been undertaken, with many showing a range of types, and workers often describing substantial Africoid remains. Often this type has been lumped into a Caucasoid cluster, typically using the term "Mediterranean." A majority of these studies show the strong influence of Sudanic and Saharan elements in the predynastic populations and yet classifictions systems often incorporate them into the Mediterranean grouping. (Vercoutter J (1978) The Peopling of ancient Egypt)[8] According to one re-analysis of metric skeletal data on the ancient Nile Valley peoples (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa,):
"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been "lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... The majority of the work describes a Negroid element, especially in the southern population and sometimes as predominating in the predynastic period (Falkenburger, 1947). Workers describing some tropical African morphological or morphometric affinities with southern predynastics and dynastics include Thompson and Randall-MacIver (1905), Thomson (19051, Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1915, 19161, Stoessiger (19271, Krogman (19371, Morant (1925,1935, 1937) (who described Upper and Lower Egyptian types without much emphasis on racial labeling), Nutter (19581, Strouhal (1968, 19711, and Angel (1972). Strouhal(1971) also analyzed hair in his study of 117 Badari crania, in which he concluded that >80% were Negroid; most of these were interpreted as being hybrids.."[9]
Issues of specific methodology and interpretation in Cranio-facial Anthropology
Cranial studies are used extensively in classifying and studying ancient Nile Valley population origins, relationships, and diversity. Methodological issues fall into four groups.
--Inaccuracy in computer models used in analysis --Use of stereotypical models in splitting and grouping cranial data --Ignoring local variability within populations on such indices as nasal measurements --Skewed cranial databases that selectively exclude certain Nile Valley areas
Inaccuracy in computer models. The methodology used in statistical studies of skeletal data has also been challenged by some researchers, not only as to the manipulation of categories, but in the results obtained with computer programs such as Fordisc or Cranid commonly used by researchers to find matches between sets of data correlated with geographic origins or race. A test of one such program for example matched ancient Nubian samples with people as far afield as Hispanics, Japanese and Easter Islanders. Such programs and models it is held, rely heavily on front-loading: starting with assumptions as to rigid, idealized 'true' types. This misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.[10]
Use of stereotypical models in splitting and grouping cranial data. Use of 'true' types to split and organize data appears in several cranial studies. One such 1993 study found the ancient Egyptians to be more related to North African, Somalian, European, Nubian and, more remotely, Indian populations, than with Sub-Saharan Africans.[11]. Critics of this study hold that it achieves its results by manipulation of data clusters and analysis categories - casting a very wide net to achieve generic, general statistical similarities with populations such as Europeans and Indians. At the same time, the statistical net is cast much more narrowly in the case of 'blacks' - carefully defining them as an extreme type south of the Sahara and excluding related populations like Somalians, Nubians and Ethiopians,[12] as well as the ancient Badarians, a key indigenous group.[13]
It is held that when the data are looked at in toto without the clustering manipulation and selective exclusions above, then a more accurate and realistic picture emerges of African diversity. For example, ancient Egyptian matches with Indians and Europeans are generic in nature (due to the broad categories used for matching purposes with these populations) and are not due to gene flow, and that ancient Egyptians such as the Badarians show greater statistical affinities to tropical African types.[14]
Ignoring local variability within populations on such indices as nasal measurements. The variability of ancient Nile Valley populations in facial features calls several classification methods used in cranial and skeletal analysis into question. Narrow noses for example, appear among North American Plains Indians, as well as highland East Africans and Europeans. The racial categorizations of some scholars in past years thus allocated both Sioux warriors and Kenyan cattle herders to some sort of "Caucasoid" genetic mixture based on arbitrary definitions of this one trait as "European".[15] More objective recent scholarship however demonstrates that such noses are common in environments of cool, dry air- a routine climatic adaptation.[16] Such clinal factors do not rely on the need for race categories to explain how people look. Yet nose measurements and definitions based on 'true' racial models are still heavily used in some studies splitting Nile Valley peoples like Nubians, Somalians or Ethiopians into various 'racial' clusters.[17] As regards population diversity in Africa on this factor, one 1993 review notes that too often research using 'true' stereotypes:
"..presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa... and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed 'non-African.'" [18]
Skewed cranial databases that selectively exclude certain Nile Valley areas. Exclusion of certain data can create a misleading picture of the ancient Nile Valley peoples. Such exclusions appear in standardized databases of cranial variation. Once such is the CRANID database, which uses samples from a single cemetery at Giza, in (northern) Lower Egypt dating around the final dynastic periods of Egypt (Dyn 26-30), to plot dendrograms suggesting that the population of ancient Egypt lies within a "European/Mediterranean bloc." In short the database is front-loaded towards a single cemetery close to the Mediterranean to serve as a "representative" standard in defining the ancient peoples. This skewed loading however, is not representative of the ancients as a whole, and excluded samples from the same time period based on several important cemetery sites at Elephantine, in Upper Egypt, further south. As respected mainstream Egyptologist Barry Kemp points out,
"If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with the African groups to the south. It is dangerous to take one set of skeketons and use them to characterize the population of the whole of Egypt." [19]
Population variability, continuity and the Nile Valley peoples
As noted above, cranial and skeletal studies have several limitations, namely assumptions that 'racial' characteristics do not change from one generation to another and that statistical aggregation could represent huge populations when in essence the aggregation serves to hide or eliminate variability within those populations. (Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, 2005 ed. Volume 18, "Evolution, Human", pp. 843-854)[20] Such studies however can still be valuable in analysis when the range of data is considered as a whole, without the selective exclusions and categorizations as noted above,[21] and when supported by other anthropological data such as material artifacts.[22] Balanced analyses of cranial and skeletal data show a range of population characteristics involved in those who peopled the Nile Valley. Some of this data is regional. One 1993 reanalysis for example, holds that:
"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans." [23] Skeletal studies in the form of limb proportions have been also used to support the cranial data. One 2003 survey for example showed that Nile Valley populations possessed more tropical body proportions, suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.[24]
Cranial analyses that include the broad range of populations in the Nile Valley tend to show a fuller picture of their diversity, as opposed to the use of one selective set of data. For example, when CRANID data is taken as a whole for the expanse of the Nile Valley, Egyptian, Nubian and African (Ethiopic) groups form a cluster together at some distance from others, and are closer to each other than to cranial data from the Near East, Turkey/Anatolia or Greece,[25] indicating confirmation with Egyptologist Frank Yurco's observation of the common heritage and continuity of the Nilotic peoples.[26]
Modern DNA analysis used on ancient Nile Valley peoples
DNA data showing linkages between Nile Valley and other African populations DNA studies on modern Nile Valley populations.A 2004 mtDNA study of upper Egyptians from Gurna performed found a genetic ancestral heritage to modern East Africans, characterized by a high M1 haplotype frequency, and another study links Egyptians in general with people from modern Eritrea and Ethiopia.[27]
A 2003 Y chromosome study was performed by Lucotte on modern Egyptians, with haplotypes V, XI, and IV being most common. Haplotype V is common in Berbers and Ethiopian Falashas (black Jews) has a low frequency outside Africa. Haplotypes V, XI, and IV are all supra/sub-Saharan horn of Africa haplotypes, and they are far more dominant in Egyptians than in Near Eastern or European groups.[28]
As regards modern populations, the general weight of data show that such groups as Egyptians have genetic affinities primarily with populations of North and East Africa, and to a lesser extent Middle Eastern and European populations.[29] The DNA data is also supported by the metric work on skeletal remains[30], (see "Summary" section below) and numerous cultural and material linkages between Nile Valley peoples demonstrated by other scholars (see also Cultural Linkages section below).
DNA studies on ancient mummies. DNA samples on ancient remains can be difficult to process due to contamination by fungi and a host of other factors.[31] However when ancient samples are analyzed they yield a picture suggesting the primarily indigenous nature of many Nile Valley peoples. For example, when ancient mitochondrial DNA was tested from a liver found in a canopic jar belonging to Nekht-Ankh, a Middle Kingdom priest, they were found to be quite similar to modern Egyptian mitochondrial lineages. Results from further DNA comparisons to non-southern Nile Delta populations in the late 1980s found that "small subsets of modern Egyptian mitochondrial DNA lineages are closely related to Sub-Saharan African lineages."[32]
DNA studies of Nile Valley gene flow. A 1999 DNA study of gene flow among the Nile Valley populations raises even more doubts about the Aryan model's claims of a "Mediterranean race" sweeping into the north, then branching out to civilize the darker natives further south. The study demonstrates that movement was taking place freely, with more weight of gene flow from the 'darker' South up into the north or Lower Egypt than north-south movement.[33] This corrobates with historical evidence for the predominant cultural weight of the 'darker' south leading into establishment of the first Egyptian dynasties. The DNA data also shows substantial gene flow between Egypt and Nubia, confirming Egyptologist Frank Yurco's observation(Yurco 1989) that the Nubians were the closest people ethnically to the Egyptians, and that Egyptian differentiation between themselves and Nubians was primarily in a political, not racial context.[34]
Methodological problems in applying of DNA analysis to ancient Nile Valley populations
When attempts are made to split the ancient Nile Valley populations along racial lines using DNA analysis, the following methodological problems have been noted by several scholars. These generally fall into 8 areas:
--'Race' as a factor in differentiating human populations occurs in very low proportions --Use of stereotypical "true" negro types to represent African genetic diversity --Contradictory resuts from DNA racial studies --Use of limited samples as "representative" of "Africans" versus use of broad data ranges to represent Europeanized populations --Pre-sorting of samples into racial categories before beginning DNA analysis thus skewing final results --Limited applicability of DNA racial analysis in dicing up closely related population --Exclusion of African data that does not meet pre-determined racial models --Use of misleading labeling such as "Oriental" or "Near Eastern" rather than taking DNA data in local context
Some DNA analysis throws doubt on racial categories Modern DNA analysis such as the work of Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, has analzed genetic affinities among peoples and enabled broad clustering groups to be defined. These clusters are held to relate fairly well to the "classical" racial groupings.[35] Other researchers however such as Lewontin using the same analysis point out that the genetic affinities attributable to race only make up 6-10% of variant analysis. This is a threshold well below that used to analyze lineages in other species, leading many researches to question the validity of race as a biological construct. (Apportionment of Racial Diversity: A Review, Ryan A. Brown and George J. Armelagos, 2001, Evolutionary Anthropology, 10:34-40)[36] Lewontin's analysis has been validated and replicated by numerous other studies, using a wide range of different analytical methods- (Latter 1980, Nei and Roychoudhury 1982, Ryaman 1983, Dean 1994, Barbujani 1997).
Other similar work using mtDNA analysis shows a larger variance within designated racial categories than outside (Excoffier 1992). Work such as Miller (1997) has found greater racial difference by focusing on specific loci, but these are compartively rare (2 out of 17, and 4 out of 109 in re-analyses by other researchers), and are well within the range of other factors such as genetic drift and clinal variation. Restudies of loci data (Lewotin, Barbajuni, Latter, et. al as noted above)yield even more conservative estimates of race as a factor in genetic variability.[37] On the basis of this data, some scholars (Owens and King 1999) hold that skin color, hair and facial features and other factors are more attributable to climate selective factors rather than stereotypic racial differences.[38]
DNA racial studies and contradictory results from study design Liberman and Jackson (1995), and Ryan and Armelagos(2001) point to contradictory results in DNA racial analysis, in that many studies "select the small proportion of genetic variability that is roughly apportionable by race to plot out dendrograms of essentially false categorizations of human variability. To accomplish this, these studies use apriori categorizations of human variability that are based on the inaccurate belief that classical racial categorization schemes delineate a series of isolated breeding populations.." An example of contradictory results are seen in the work of such researches as Bowcock, Bowcock, Sforza, et. al, 1994.
"Despite a research design that should have maximized the degree to which the researchers were able to classify individuals by racial category, the results are something less than "high resolution" with respect to this goal. For example, 88% of individuals were classified as coming from the right continent, while only 46% were classified as coming from the right region within each continent. Notably, 0% success was achieved in classifying East Asian populations to their region or origin. These results occurred despite the fact that Bowcock and co-workers entered their genetic information into a program that already used the a priori racial categories they were trying to replicate."[39] Ironically, some of Bowcock's data itself contradicts "classical" race categories, suggesting that Caucasoids, rather than being a primary group, are a secondary type or race, a hybrid strain based on certain variants of African and Asian populations.[40]
DNA methods and the pre-sorting of data before analysis In the light of this modern DNA analysis, grouping methods and classifications like Cavalli-Sforza's Extra-European Caucasoid to incorporate various North African peoples like the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and others, has drawn criticism from some scholars (Keita and Kittles 1999) for advocating the language of a non-racial approach, but in practice, using pre-defined, arbitrary categories to hold the data rather than let them speak for themselves. [41] Populations like those in the Nile Valley - just like populations anywhere in Africa - can have a wide range of variation, hold Kittles and Keita in The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence as opposed to pigeonholing them into apriori groupings.[42]
Other anthropologists such as Lieberman and Jackson (1995), also find numerous methodological and conceptual problems in using DNA sequencing methods such as cladistics to support concepts of race. They hold for example that: "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples For example, 'the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation. This limits and skews interpretations, obscures other lineage relationships, deemphasizes the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity.' [43]
DNA methods using 'true negro' types Limitations in specific DNA sampling techniques have also been noted by writers such as Keita and Kittles, particularly as regards the "representative" samples used for "black" Africans. One example cited is Cavalli-Sforza's advocacy of defining "core populations" (discrete, less admixed groupings, i.e. "races") and their evolution and migration. Followers of this approach (Horai 1995) use DNA analysis to postulate racial divergence times, when discrete populations supposedly began to form from "core" peoples into spreading populations throughout Africa, Europe, Asia and elsewhere. As regards Africa, the entire mtDNA sequence was applied to the core groups or populations to determine such divergences. Samples used in measurement were (a) one African individual from Uganda who was used to represent all African peoples, (b) 10 individuals from Japan, whose gene data was amalgamated into a consensus to represent Asians, and (c) a large cluster of Europeanized data called the Cambridge sequence was used as a stand-in for Europeans. On this basis, entire geographic regions were conceptualized as authentic.
Keita and Kittles call for less narrow definition of "true types" and recognition of a wide range of population gradients and variations among peoples of Africa, particularly northeast Africa (the Horn, Nubia, the Nile Valley and the Sahara).[44]
DNA methodology and geographic distances A number of surveys have attempted to use DNA data as a marker of race, tyically centering on identifying populations based on their geographic regions. Such studies are sometimes fairly accurate in distinguishing between groups that were very widely separated by distance- such as European Swedes versus African Pygmies. However when groups living in close proximity to each other are analyzed then the analyses lose much of their strength. Applied to peoples in Southern India for example, data from one survey showed that they had much more in common genetically with each other than with distant peoples such as Europeans.[45] This proximity of related peoples (Nubians, Egyptians, Somalians, Ethiopians, Sudanese, etc), sharing a number of common genetic, material and cultural elements.[46] is precisely what is at issue in the Nilotic populations. On such counts, many DNA studies that attempt to dice up that population into traditionally assigned racial groups fall short.[47]
Clustering methods across geographic boundaries to place racial groups have also been questioned, such as the use of such huge categories as Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas,[48] assignment of the widest possible categories to groups classified as Caucasoid,[49] while isolating certain others in narrower regions, separating out related populations (i.e. the Nilotic peoples), and non-evolutionary treatment of movement through geographic barriers.[50] The Sahara for example was often fertile in various eras and with a fluctuating climate cycle congenial to movement and interchange, and was not a rigid barrier throughout the millennia.[51]
DNA studies and racial models excluding certain African data Several DNA studies applied to peoples near or in the Nile Valley have also been criticized for downplaying or excluding essential data on African populations in order to maintain certain racial models.[52] One study of gene and language flow for example, repeatedly excluded African data not meeting assigned racial categories, removing Chadic, Omotic and Cushitic speakers to create the impression that Ethiopians are an anomaly, i.e. Africans who speak the language of Caucasians.[53] When gene-frequency clustering in another survey did not adhere to the designated Caucasian categories (European and Middle Eastern) the study's authors simply excluded the non-European DNA samples to achieve desired results. According to one review: "The data in effect were tailored to fit into the traditional racial schema."[54] The racial models used in similar research have also been queried, particularly when data from various peoples held to be 'representative' of certain racial classifications (Berbers for example) continually shifts between 'assigned' categories, calling the validity of the categories themselves into question.[55]
Use of misleading labels applied to Nile Valley DNA data
Pre-labeling may not capture complexity of population variability A number of researchers such as Sforza, et. al continue to use categories such as Extra European Caucasoid and other related labels to categorize the Nile Valley peoples. Others such as Keita and Kittles argue that modern DNA and anthropological analysis points to the need for less pre-categorization and more emphasis on clinal variation and gradations that are more than adequate to explain differences between peoples rather than pre-conceived racial categories. It is held that arbitrary divisions into "Caucasoid" clusters, use of stereotypical "true" negro or sub-Saharan samples, and separating out of other Northeast African populations, does not capture the full range of variation among of Nile Valley peoples. Such variation need not be the result of a "mix" from categories such as Negroid or Caucasoid, but may be simply a contiuum of peoples in that region from skin color, to facial features, to hair, to height.[56]
Keita's arguments also contradict assertions and labels used by some Afrocentric writers as to the 'race' of the ancient peoples, and the culture and genetics of the Nilotic peoples, such as the "sun people, ice people" formulation of US college Professor Leonard Jefferies in the 1990s.[57] Keita's research also challenges Afrocentric notions as to a worldwide 'black' phenotype in places such as New Guinea or India linked with the Nilotic or African peoples,[58] pointing rather to DNA data placing such populations closer to those of Southeast Asia rather than the Nile Valley.[59]
Use of labels such as 'Oriental,' 'Arabic,' or 'Middle Eastern' The question of inconsistent labeling also arises in describing African and Nile Valley DNA samples, held by some scholars to be part of "the ongoing tendency in some disciplines to label the Nile valley as Middle Eastern, in a fashion that effectively suggests that Egypt has no African context, and that also hides its biocultural Africanity in pre-Islamic times."[60]
Chromosonial variants that have a bearing on the Nile Valley include Haplotype IV, which is found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley, but has been misleadingly called "Oriental". The haplotypes VII and VIII are the major indigenous Near Eastern haplotypes, found especially in Near Eastern Arabic speakers and Jews. In comparison to those of V their frequencies are small in supra-Saharan Africa.[61]
Haplotype V has also seen the use of misleading terms like "Arabic" to describe it, implying it is of 'Middle Eastern' origins.[62] When the hapotype V variant is looked at in context however, very high prevalences occur in African countries above the Sahara and Ethiopia, with heavy concentrations found among Berbers and Falashas (black Jews of Ethiopia). The weight of this distribution in Africa, rather than Arabia, has led researchers like Lucotte 1993, 1996 et. al.) to call the gene variant "African" or "Berber." As regards the Ethiopian Falahas, (the 'black' Jews), they have a very high frequency of haplotypes V and XI, with none or little of VII and VIII (often associated with movements of Arabic and Turkic peoples into Egypt) which shows them to be "clearly of African origin" per Lucotte and Mercier, 2003. As a result of this data, some DNA researchers hold that it is more accurate to call hapotype V "Horn-supra-Saharan African" rather than "Arabic" and to recognize it as indigeous to Africa rather than labeling it as "Middle Eastern" or "Oriental."[63] Overall the Nile Valley peoples show a diversity of chromosonal patterns throughout their long history.[64]
References
1. Diop, Cheikh Anta, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974) 2. Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History," Basic Books, 1997. See also "AFROCENTRISM: The Argument We're Really Having," by Ibrahim Sundiata, DISSONANCE (September 30, 1996 3. Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships," Journal International Journal of Anthropology, Springer: Netherlands, ISSN 0393-9383, Issue Volume 10, Numbers 2-3 / April, 1995 , Pages 107-123 4. Keita and Kittles, op. cit 5. Frank l'engle Williams, Robert L. Belcher, and George J . Armelagos, "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation," Current Anthropology, volume 46 (2005), pages 340-346 6. Keita, op. cit 7. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544 8. Vercoutter J (1978) The Peopling of ancient Egypt. In: The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of Meroitic Script. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 15-36, 54 9. S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990) 10. Frank l'engle Williams, Robert L. Belcher, and George J . Armelagos, "Forensic Misclassification of Ancient Nubian Crania: Implications for Assumptions about Human Variation," Current Anthropology, volume 46 (2005), pages 340-346 11. See S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles,' The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence', American Anthropologist (1997) on study of C. Loring Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race"'(1993) and S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005) 12. S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles,' The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence', American Anthropologist (1997); S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005) 13. Keita, (2005) op. cit 14. Keita and Kittles (1997): op. cit; Keita (2005): op. cit; Keita, "Further studies of crania", op. cit.; Hiernaux J (1975) The People of Africa. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons; Hassan FA (1988) The predynastic of Egypt. J. World Prehist. 2: 135-185 15. Lionel Casson, Robert Claiborne, Brian Fagan, Walter Karp, Mysteries of the Past, New York: American Heritage Publishing Company. 1977, p. 215-227 16. Casson, et al., op. cit 17. Kittles and Keita, op. cit 18. S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993), page 134 19. Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge: 2005, p. 55; see also FW Rosing, 'Qubbet el Hawa und Elephantine; zur Bevolkerungsgeschichte von Agypten,' (trans: Qubbet el Hawa and Elephantine, Populations in the history of Egypt) Stuttgart and New York, 1990, p. 209, Abb 134 20. Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, 2005 ed. Volume 18, "Evolution, Human", pp. 843-854 21. Keita, op. cit 22. Kemp, p. 52-60 23. S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url= 24. Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10223.? 25. Kemp, p. 53 26. Yurco, op. cit 27. Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al, "Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt," (Ann. Hum. Genet., 2004), vol 68, pp 23-29); Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu E, Rosa A, Brehm A, Pennarun E, Parik J, Geberhiwot T, Usanga E, Villems R (2004). "Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears.". Am J Hum Genet 75 (5): 752-70 28. S.O.Y. Keita, "History in the interpretation of the pattern of p49a, f TaqI RFLP Y-chromosome variation in Egypt: a consideration of multiple lines of evidence," (American Journal of Human Biology, 2005), pp. 559-67; url = 29. Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu E, 'Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears,' Am. J. Hum. Genet., (2004), volume 75, Issue 5, pp. 752-70 30. Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", op. cit. 31. Lovell, op. cit 32. Svante Pääbo and Anna Di Rienzo, "A Molecular Approach to the Study of Egyptian History," in Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt, ed. W. Vivian Davies and Roxie Walker, (London: British Museum Press,1993),87-88. 33. Krings M, Salem AE, Bauer K, Geisert H, Malek AK, Chaix L, Simon C, Welsby D, Di Rienzo A, Utermann G, Sajantila A, Pääbo S, Stoneking M., "mtDNA analysis of Nile River Valley populations: A genetic corridor or a barrier to migration?" Am J Hum Genet. 1999 Apr;64(4):1166-76. 34. Yurco, F.J., 1989, 'Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White?' Biblical Archaeological Review, 15: 24-27, 29, 58 35. i-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P. & Piazza, A. The History and Geography of Human Genes Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-691-08750-4 36. Apportionment of Racial Diversity: A Review, Ryan A. Brown and George J. Armelagos, 2001, Evolutionary Anthropology, 10:34-40 webfile: 37. Apportionment, op. cit. 38. Apportionment, op. cit. 39. Apportionment.. op. cit. 40. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544 41. Rick Kitties, and S. O. Y. Keita, "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity", African Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, No. 2,1999, p. 1-5 42. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544 43. Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242 44. The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544 45. Michael J. Bamshad and Steve E. Olson, "Does Race Exist?" Scientific American 78 (Dec 2003): 78-85 46. Keita, op. cit; Yurco, op. cit.; Strouhal, E., 1971 47. Kittle and Keita, op. cit 48. Keita and Kittles, op. cit 49. Keita, 1997, op. cit 50. Keita and Kittles, op. cit 51. Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review", 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996 52. Kittles and Keita, "Kittles and Keita in The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence", op. cit. 53. Kittles and Keita, "The persistence.." op. cit 54. Kittles and Keita, "The persistence.." op. cit 55. Kittles and Keita, "The Persistence.." op. cit 56. Kittles and Keita, op. cit 57. Leonard Jefferies, "Our Sacred Mission", speech at the Empire State Black Arts and Cultural Festival in Albany, New York, July 20, 1991, [1] 58. Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: 1987) 59. Kittles and Keita, op. cit 60. S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 61. Boyce and Keita, op. cit 62. Boyce and Keita, op. cit 63. Boyce and Keita, op. cit S.O.Y. Keita, "History in the interpretation of the pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-chromosome variation in Egypt: A consideration of multiple lines of evidence," Am. J. Hum. Biol. 17: 559-567
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^All I have to say to your obviously blatantly ignorant question is; what is a recap smartguy?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice refresher. Funny that the exact same thing is on Zaharan's website, and before that it was on wikipedia (in an article titled "Origin of Nilotic peoples").. You can still see the citation brackets.
The fact that this information is being recycled is a very good thing as it can be referenced more easily by neophytes.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^All I have to say to your obviously blatantly ignorant question is; what is a recap smartguy?
I was just being facetious.
Perhaps openass nazi trannies like Eva could look that word up-- facetious. Do you know what that means?? Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Nice refresher. Funny that the exact same thing is on Zaharan's website, and before that it was on wikipedia (in an article titled "Origin of Nilotic peoples").. You can still see the citation brackets.
The fact that this information is being recycled is a very good thing as it can be referenced more easily by neophytes.
I agree. This thread deserves a sticky to the top of the forum page-- specifically in the more decent Egyptology page.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Nice refresher.
Indeed, and why I decided to recap, well, with all the nonsensical rehashed trolling going on around here, it's well called for.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Unscientific approach of Bowcock: "Bowcock and co-workers entered their genetic information into a program that already used the a priori racial categories they were trying to replicate."
Bowcock (1991) contradicts classical race categories, not the racial schema itself. (Bowcock conforms to the schema – Keita): "Bowcock's data itself contradicts "classical" race categories, suggesting that Caucasoids, rather than being a primary group, are a secondary type or **race**"
Caucasoids are still conceived as a race, just a secondary one.
quote:grouping methods and classifications like Cavalli-Sforza's Extra-European Caucasoid to incorporate various North African peoples like the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and others, has drawn criticism from some scholars (Keita and Kittles 1999)
In effect Sforza is saying North Africans (Extra-European Caucasoids) are hybrids of Africans and Asians. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Actually yes, you're one of the trolls I speak of, glad you noticed.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
LMAO Mindover cracks that whip on 'em. Where do you guys get your stuff from, I must learn. Inspiring.
Posts: 368 | From: Oxford | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, but I don't kiss ass. Perhaps you need to stop sucking d*cks of men on meds, their pharmaceuticals in their sperm has obviously affected your brains.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Nice refresher. Funny that the exact same thing is on Zaharan's website, and before that it was on wikipedia (in an article titled "Origin of Nilotic peoples").. You can still see the citation brackets.
The fact that this information is being recycled is a very good thing as it can be referenced more easily by neophytes.
I first ran across this on wikipedia. Imagine my shock. Thoughts finally put into words, albeit on the dubious wiki.
Posts: 455 | From: Tharsis Montes | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Nice refresher. Funny that the exact same thing is on Zaharan's website, and before that it was on wikipedia (in an article titled "Origin of Nilotic peoples").. You can still see the citation brackets.
The fact that this information is being recycled is a very good thing as it can be referenced more easily by neophytes.
The Dumbi-pedia clique removed the info, thinking they would suppress it but thanks to ES it can be put to use, and reach an audience 40 times what it was getting on Dumbi-pedia. But it is only a refresher, like you say. The real depth is on ES.
Someone's got to remember, and tell it the way it is, and was.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I was wondering what happened. So they tagged it as a dupe of AE and Race article I suppose? What a load. That's why I stopped editing wiki, even though I commend Morpheus for his continued efforts.
It's better this way since there's a lot more freedom here and on whatever peripheral websites, blogs, study groups we create to control the flow of accurate information, as opposed to conceding obvious B.S. under the false guise of "neutrality" and "good faith" (even when in direct conflict with common sense).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Precisely, that is one of their little ploys. They are governed by deception. Research and scholarship mean nothing, despite all the happy talk they make about it. But their attempts to suppress that research and scholarship have been a dismal failure. It's backfired. What they tried to suppress is now reaching more people than ever. On Dumbi-pedia the article was isolated, with like 10 hits a month. Outside their little corral, the info is hitting about 300 a month- more if you count excerpts quoted or posted elsewhere. ES is way bigger, and Google searches bring up ES stuff many times what is found on Dumbi-pedia. Like you say with these supplementary websites and blogs anchored to ES the expansion will not only continue but be more accurate than the BS they are pushing. They have failed miserably.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Mindover cracks that whip on 'em. Where do you guys get your stuff from, I must learn. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic