Does anyone have the study? Perhaps you can send it to Myra so she can fix the link....
Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions, S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87: 245-254 (1992)
zarahan Member # 15718
posted
I looked some time ago at the one you mentioned on tissues- dated recent- 2005. They ran modern analysis on skin from ancient mummies from Upper Egypt from the tomb of the Nobles in Thebes-West. The results: melanin content showed them to be of Negroid origin. Quote:
"During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." --(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13[[37A]]
Morpheus Member # 16203
posted
Yep. Good find. That's why I think it would be a good study to post on Myra's page. Can you get access to this study?
zarahan Member # 15718
posted
I'll see. I am looking for the following one below. -- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.
It should be noted though that other scholars see continuity between tropical types in place early and later populations. In either event, its tropical types across the board.
Gene flow into the Nubian area during the Neolithic was not from reputed "wandering Caucasoids" but from tropical, Sub-Saharan types.
"Prior to the Neolithic, populations of the Nile Valley in Nubia are very robust, and, because of a gap in the fossil record, it is difficult to connect them to later populations. Some have postulated a local evolution, due to diet change, while others postulated migrations, especially from the Sahara area. But between 5000 and 1000 BC, many cemeteries have supplied a large amount of skeletons, and the anatomical characters of Nubian populations are easier to follow-up. Twenty-seven archaeological samples (4 at 5000 BC, 5 at 4000 BC, 10 at 3000 BC, 3 at 2000 BC, 5 at 1000 BC), and 10 craniofacial measurements, have been considered. While cerebral skull is fairly stable, facial skull displays several regular modifications, and specially a reduction of facial and nasal heights, a broadening of the nose, and an increase of prognathism, while bizygomatic breadth is unchanged. These features illustrate a trend towards a growing resemblance with populations of Sub-Saharan Africa living in wet environments. However, paleoclimatological studies show that Nubia experienced an increasing aridification during that period. It is then unlikely that such a morphological change could be related to any local adaptive evolution to environment. Random drift is also unlikely, because the anatomical trend is relatively uniform during these millennia. It then seems more plausible that these changes correspond to the increasing presence of Southern populations migrating northward." -- Froment, A. (2002) Morphological micro-evolution of Nubian Populations from, A-Group to Christian Epochs: gene flow, not local adaptation. Am J Phys Anthropol [Suppl] 34:72.
zarahan Member # 15718
posted
One interesting item from Keita's "Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa"- Some claim that northern Egyptians were "European" based on cranial studies, but this is dubious for as Keita notes, some of these claims are based on airbrushing away anything that meets the "true negro" type further south. Indeed he notes that excavation workers came upon what were classified as "negroid" remains, but these strangely seem to vanish or are downplayed in subsequent analyses by expedition leaders.
It should also be noted that the "European" pattern is based on LATE DYNASTY Egypt when the presence of numerous foreigners from outside appeared, and samples are drawn from the far north and overweighted in the series package as Keita says. Furthermore the touted "European" pattern is actually an "intermediate" one, with a range of varying features, but somehow, strangely, it is called 'European'. When the shoe is on the other foot, and the same mixed pattern is found with 'negroid' samples, the 'negroes' curiously seem to be airbrushed away.
As to the hypocritical "true negro" dodge so often used by Eurocentrics, Keita drily notes:
"The practice of making only the Broad (extreme “Negro”) phenotype the only “real” tropical African, and regarding only this phenotype in Egyptian art as evidence of “the Black (read African) (e.g., Vercoutter, 1976), would be analogous to searching for “Nordic” or “East Baltic” phenotypes in realistic Greek statuary as evidence of the “True White,” and implying the other Greeks to be non-Europeans."
Even more interesting, the much touted 'Europeans" establish their presence in some analyses through the choice of analytical technique. When other valid analytical methods are used, i.e. the "divider method," the pattern becomes a tropical African one, (indeed a Broad type) and that this method yields a more natural fit to the data.
quote: Howells’ (1973) study which included the late dynastic northern “E” series, shows its “intermediateness,” since with a synthetic cluster technique it groups with northern Europeans but with a divisive method with tropical Africans (and of the Broad, not Elongated physiognomy). Both approaches are valid but some investigators claim that the divisive technique produces more “natural” groups (Blakith and Reyment. 1971).
.
Whatbox Member # 10819
posted
Practically any study if exists that deals with the greening Sahara and demic movements into it from Eastren Africa.
What about studies like the skeletal morphology study comparing the AE to white Americans and black Americans in intra-limbic, brachial and crural indices posted by Alive Brandon Zarahan and Sundjata in the Ethiopians and East Africans thread?
zarahan Member # 15718
posted
DNA is good but we always need a cross check with cultural, limb proportion and cranial data, as Keita himself recommends. Those are some good studies though- some by Keita. I am glad he is out there to keep them honest, particularly with the amount of sampling bias we see in many DNA studies.
posted