Born on Thursday, November 26th, 1959 at 7:37pm CCT, on what was then Clark Air Base, near Angeles City, Pampanga in the Philippines.
My father is from Masantol (Macabebe) and my mother from Angeles City, Pampanga in the Philippines. I was born at the hospital of what was then Clark AFB in the foothills of the Zambales mountains on the Pampanga-Zambales border.
I have lived in Sacramento, California for about 25 years altogether including the last 20 years. Over the years, I have traveled to 16 countries and more than 300 cities, often doing research for my books.
My three books so far are
The Naga Race,
Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
and
Sailing the Black Current: Secret History of Ancient Philippine Argonauts in Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Beyond
I have researched ancient and medieval history for decades traveling to far corners of the world for clues about little-known ancient maritime voyaging and oceanic trade networks.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Previously we have discussed the Austric people, under the designation, Naga, a Hindu term referring to a type of serpent. The use of the name Naga for the seafaring Austrics is appropriate due to the widespread and rather continuous dispersion of the serpent oriented Austrics throughout history.
-p 30, The Naga Race
___________________________________________
"Ethiopians have had very intimate relations with Indians. In fact, in antiquity the Ethiopians ruled much of India. These Ethiopians were called the Naga." -Dr. Clyde Winters
__________________________________________
wikipedia:
The term Naga people refers to a conglomeration of several tribes inhabiting the North Eastern part of India and north-western Burma. The tribes have similar cultures and traditions, and form the majority ethnic group in the Indian states of Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. Apart from cultural contacts with the neighboring Ahoms, the rulers of Assam from 1228, the Naga had little or no contact with the outside world, including that of greater India, until British colonization of the area in the nineteenth century.
Black and white photographs by R.G. Woodthorpe, c.1873-1875 Tangkhul Nagas photographs Tangkhul Woodthorpe/ R.G.(1873-1875). Pitt Rivers Museum Archive, Oxford AL.62.1.4
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greetings. I sent him your message and he replied with this information:
Indian Influences in the Philippines,” Modern Review (1987), Calcutta.
The Naga Race, Firma KLM, Calcutta, 1994.
"The Austric Origin of the Brahmana and Rishi Traditions," International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (1995), vol.xxiv, no.2, Jun..
“Sungka mathematics of the Philippines,” Indian J. Hist. Sci. 30 (1995), no. 1, 13--29.
“Sungka Methods of Squaring the Circle,” News Bulletin of the Calcutta Math. Society (1995), 18(4), 13-23.
“Sungka Quadrature of the Circle,” News Bulletin of the Calcutta Math. Society (1995), 18(5), 9-14.
"The Austric Origin of the Sumerian Language," Language Forum (1996), vol. 22, no.1-2, Jan.-Dec, New Delhi.
“Austric in India," International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics (1996), vol. XXVIII, no.1.
Nimitta, Lakshana and Sakuna: The Art and Science of Reading Signs, Houck, Hindu Astrology Lessons, Groundswell Press, USMD, 1997.
“Introduction,” IN: H. Evangelista and Virgil J. Mayor Apostol, The Healing Hands of Hilot: Filipino Therapeutic Massage, National City, Calif.: self-published, 1998.
"Number mysticism in other regions and the impact of Sunya," IN: The Concept of Sunya/edited by A.K. Bag and S.R. Sarma. New Delhi, Aryani Books, 2003 (originally presented as paper at seminar sponsored by Indian National Science Academy and Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts).
Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan, Lulu Press (ISBN: 1430308990), 2006.
Sailing the Black Current, Charleston: Amazon/BookSurge (ISBN: 1419676970), 2007.
The Great Scorching: Possible linkages to ancient and modern global warming,” Closing paper for Alamat International Conference on Myths and Symbols, Manila, November, 2008.
Online Publications and Groups: Ta-Seti: Kmt and African Civilization. Web Discussion Forum (Moderator and Founder). Feb 2001 – Sep 2007. http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/ta_seti.
posted
According to Clyde Winters the Ethiopian called Naga from East Africa ruled much of India and Indochina in Antiquity.The Naga were called serpent king because their symbol was the serpent.It was the Naga who created Sanskrit.
The Naga were great seaman who ruled much of India, Sri Lanka and Burma.The Aryan described them as half man and snake.The Tamil knew them as warlike people who used the bow and noose.
The first great kingdom of India was Naganadu.Naga had their capital city in the Deccan as early as 1300 BC.
The Naga came from Kush/Punt-Ethiopia.The Puntite were the greatest sailors of the ancient world.In the Egyptian inscription there is mention of the puntite ports of outculit, Hamesu, Tekaru, wich correspond to Adulis Hamasen and Tigre.
The Puntites traded with the people of the Indus Valley called Dilmun.The Sumerian called Punt Meluhha
The Ethiopian bible Kebra Nagast states the Ethiopian Arwe dynasty ruled India.The founder of that dynasty was Za Besi Angabo.This dynasty started in 1370 BC.These Ethiopian rulers of India were called Nagas.Queen Makeda of Ethiopia had servant and merchant that traded with India and Egypt.Her son Menelik 1 was a great conqueror.He ruled an Empire that incuded Ethiopia, the river of Egypt and East India.His Naga colony of India included the Dekkan and the East coast of India between the Kaviri and Vagai rivers.
The major gift of the Naga to India was the writing system called Nagari.Nagari is the name for the sanscrit script.The Ancient Ethiopic and Sanscrit script are one in the same.The name nagari for the sanskrit language derived from naga. This is one of the proof that sanskrit come from the Naga people or Ethiopian.The Ethiopian scipt also influence the Armenian script.
The Ethiopian Naga or serpent king introduced the worship of Kali, the serpent, Murugan and the sun or Krishna.The God called Murugan is worshiped by many East African.God Krishna associated with the sun means black.
Source African King of India in Rasta Live Wire.
The Tangkhul Nagas have a Mohawk hairstyle that is similar to the Fulani of Africa.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
Born on Thursday, November 26th, 1959 at 7:37pm CCT, on what was then Clark Air Base, near Angeles City, Pampanga in the Philippines.
My father is from Masantol (Macabebe) and my mother from Angeles City, Pampanga in the Philippines. I was born at the hospital of what was then Clark AFB in the foothills of the Zambales mountains on the Pampanga-Zambales border.
I have lived in Sacramento, California for about 25 years altogether including the last 20 years. Over the years, I have traveled to 16 countries and more than 300 cities, often doing research for my books.
My three books so far are
The Naga Race,
Quests of the Dragon and Bird Clan
and
Sailing the Black Current: Secret History of Ancient Philippine Argonauts in Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Beyond
I have researched ancient and medieval history for decades traveling to far corners of the world for clues about little-known ancient maritime voyaging and oceanic trade networks.
Rumor has it that Mansala may be your buddy Djehuti himself! Posts: 27 | From: Birmingham's Black Country | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Well rumor is wrong!! I am NOT Manansala!!
I also don't agree with everything he says in regards to his theories of 'Austric' or Austronesian peoples. Much of his claims are indeed accurate or rather based on accurate data while the rest are theories that remain to be substantiated at best and a few claims are at worst wild hypotheses.
To claus3600, Manansala also is the webmaster of the Ta-Seti web discussion group in Yahoo.
I do believe Manansala has posted in this forum a few times under monikers like 'AsianPacific' and another one.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: Paul Kekai Manansala:
Previously we have discussed the Austric people, under the designation, Naga, a Hindu term referring to a type of serpent. The use of the name Naga for the seafaring Austrics is appropriate due to the widespread and rather continuous dispersion of the serpent oriented Austrics throughout history.
-p 30, The Naga Race
___________________________________________
"Ethiopians have had very intimate relations with Indians. In fact, in antiquity the Ethiopians ruled much of India. These Ethiopians were called the Naga." -Dr. Clyde Winters
__________________________________________
Don't even try to spoil Manansala's work by including a quote from Winters! While some of Manansala's claims are questionable they are by FAR more accurate and scholarly valid then the absurd claims of Winters such as the one you just quoted!
quote: wikipedia:
The term Naga people refers to a conglomeration of several tribes inhabiting the North Eastern part of India and north-western Burma. The tribes have similar cultures and traditions, and form the majority ethnic group in the Indian states of Nagaland, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. Apart from cultural contacts with the neighboring Ahoms, the rulers of Assam from 1228, the Naga had little or no contact with the outside world, including that of greater India, until British colonization of the area in the nineteenth century.
Black and white photographs by R.G. Woodthorpe, c.1873-1875 Tangkhul Nagas photographs Tangkhul Woodthorpe/ R.G.(1873-1875). Pitt Rivers Museum Archive, Oxford AL.62.1.4
Yes but the Naga peoples of India are Tibeto-Burman speakers who are actually more related to Burmans culturally than Austro-asiatic and Austronesian speaking peoples of Southeast Asia which Manansala (as well as some scholars) group together into an 'Austric' super-phylum. The Nagas of India have NOTHING to do with the Manansala's hypothetical sea-faring Austronesian 'Nagas'.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Don't know about Mansala's particular academic background but he need be no degreed anthropologist or archaeologist, if you run across critics of his Nile Valley essays. His citations are sound, peer reviewed ones, oft discussed on ES, and much extended since his original essay. That's the beauty of the Net. Hard data is out there and increasingly easy to access. The days of the easy, bogus white virtue narrative are done. Additional confrontation will always be needed as the distorters shift their tactics and claims, but a powerful central database is now on the floor- spread over several sites, and several contributors, sufficient to meet and take on any, and all comers.
Manasala's work forms part of that database, which is why I include a cite from it, for example, on the bottom left of the summary graphic below. Other data therein overall support what Mansala is saying. Others have made their own summaries. The more, the merrier, as long as they are rooted in good evidence and scholarship. If you can get some quotes direct from the X-ray study by Harris and Wente it would be indeed welcomed.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: ^I thought that with Anglo gone,there would have been less rancour here and that the level of discourse might have risen...
Regarding Manansala, I was hoping for more info on his expertise in physical anthropology, within the context of his analysis in The Royal Mummies.
Anyone?
It's not his analysis of the Royal mummies. He is not a professional anthropologist It's James Harris (author) and Edward Wente.(editor) They wrote the book, that's the sources
An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies 1980
They compare the mummies to modern Nubians
Earlier 1973 book same author:
X-raying the pharaohs
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ His name is Manansala and it is Filipino.
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: ^I thought that with Anglo gone,there would have been less rancour here and that the level of discourse might have risen...
Anglo was not the only troll here, 'lioness' is one too albeit a more passive-aggressive one hence her trying to distort by tying in Clyde Winter's claims with that of Paul Manansala.
quote:Regarding Manansala, I was hoping for more info on his expertise in physical anthropology, within the context of his analysis in The Royal Mummies.
Anyone?
He has no expertise in anthropology, but is a journalist who is an expert on research. Although he may not be an anthropologist or geneticist himself, his ability to critique and scrutinize such scientific sources seem uncanny.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Manasala has a brief essay on anthropology of Nile Valley on his asiapacific site, which ties in with his Mummies essay. See:
Don't know about Mansala's particular academic background but he need be no degreed anthropologist or archaeologist, if you run across critics of his Nile Valley essays. His citations are sound, peer reviewed ones, oft discussed on ES, and much extended since his original essay. That's the beauty of the Net. Hard data is out there and increasingly easy to access. The days of the easy, bogus white virtue narrative are done. Additional confrontation will always be needed as the distorters shift their tactics and claims, but a powerful central database is now on the floor- spread over several sites, and several contributors, sufficient to meet and take on any, and all comers.
Manasala's work forms part of that database, which is why I include a cite from it, for example, on the bottom left of the summary graphic below. Other data therein overall support what Mansala is saying. Others have made their own summaries. The more, the merrier, as long as they are rooted in good evidence and scholarship. If you can get some quotes direct from the X-ray study by Harris and Wente it would be indeed welcomed.
Absolutely! Manansala is an example par excellence of someone who needs no degree or expertise in the matter yet is knowledgeable in the said matter to have a grasp on the info and is able to judge the data as well as the conclusions on the data stated by experts. He uses peer-reviewed journals and papers to support his judgements.
Not surprisingly it his very logical and sound judgments on the Egyptians being (black) Africans that has irritated the Euronuts and has earned their ire. This is why I (humorously) hear complaints from Euronuts who try to discredit him by conflating him with pseudo-scholar nuts like Clyde Winters-- case in point Lyinass. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you can get some quotes direct from the X-ray study by Harris and Wente it would be indeed welcomed.
I have the book.
'Generally, the dentition of each New Kingdom pharoah and queen represents a unique combination of dental characters, such as overbite, overjet, interincisal relationship, and molar relationship, which permits the identification of each mummy from the x-rays of the dentition alone. This observation is not surprising since the teeth or dentition remains one of the most formidable tools available to the forensic specialist. Dental-alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait which is normal for the Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in pharoahs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the Twenty-first Dynasty (fig.9.10). Other royal mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep II had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people of the Western world (fig.9.11).
In summary, then, the pharoahs and queens of the New Kingdom- a period of almost 500 years, were heterogeneous from the viewpoint of facial profile and dental occlusion.' (p332)
'Figure 9.10 The cephalometric x-ray of Thutmose I reveals the prominent dental-alveolar prognathism most frequently observed in both modern and ancient Nubians.'
'Figure 9.11 The x-ray cephalogram of Thutmose IV illustrates the very straight profile and dental overbite relationship characteristic of the Mediterranean populations.'
'It has been argued that Thutmose I was not the son of Amenhotep I, but rather claimed the throne through marriage to his predecessor's sisters (Harris and Weeks 1973). The craniofacial skeleton reveals little similarity between Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, as is apparent in the computerized tracings of the nathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of the Nubians from the ancient cemeteries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm the similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II (Appendix table A1). Certainly Smith and Maspero must be considered correct when they assume that these two mummies must be closely related, but of course they could be brothers as well as father and son.
Further Elliot Smith suggests that Thutmose I is very similar to both Thutmose II and Thutmose III. But after more careful inspection of the craniofacial complex there is a gradient between Thutmose I all the way through Thutmose IV, with the mummy of each of these pharoahs more similar to his immediate predecessor and successor than to any mummies considered in the continuum. Therefore, Thutmose I may be very similar to Thutmose II, while considerably less similar to Thutmose III, who has a straight profile without the protruding dentition and jaws. Amenhotep I and Thutmose IV have even straighter profiles.'(p351-352)
'Figure 10.9a,b The cephalometric x-ray and computerized tracing reveal the remarkable similarity of Thutmose I to Thutmose II.'
'Figure 10.10a,b The prognathic or forward protrusion of the maxilla noted by Elliot Smith in the early Eighteenth Dynasty queens is very evident in the x-rays and tracings of Ahmes-Meryetamon and Ahmes-Nefertary.'
'An X-Ray Atlas Of the Royal Mummies'(1980) James E. Harris and Edward F.Wente
Not sure about the use of the term 'Mediterranean' in this context, but hope you find the above useful.
I think you can find the figures/images in Manansala's analysis.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
"I would like to add that Dr. Winters is a very helpful scholar. When I had some questions about his works he immediately sent me copies of many of his articles by mail and was ever-ready to answer questions." -Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala ______________________________________
"Clyde Winters has suggested that Linear A and Proto-Sumerian inscriptions along with the associated languages derive from the same (African) source" - Paul Kekai Manansala
The Black identity movement seems to be gaining a lot of popularity among Dalits. And Winters is widely published in South Indian journals. Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The wide support of researchers from many ethnic groups other than Africans brings into question the Euronut claim that the position of an African foundation of Egypt is little more than revisionist history of black and liberal white proponents, intended to uplift the self-worth of African Americans, who supposedly are solely dependant on Ancient Egypt to give them a sense of history prior to the slave trade.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
The first thing an anthropologist might notice is the elevation of the skulls of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III(?). This gives a roundish appearance to the skull. Tutankhamen's skull is rather exceptional as can be seen in the x-ray image. The elevated skull and roundish appearance are features commonly assigned to the African phenotype. In comparsion, "Caucasoid" skulls are usually level and the top of the head has a oblong type of appearance (see Stephen Molnar. Human variation : races, types, and ethnic groups [ Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1992; Juan Comas, Manual of physical anthropology, [Springfield, Ill., Thomas [1960] )
Notice the the straight contour along the top of the skull of the image to the left. The Egyptian crania tend to rise near the top. The skull of Amenhotep III is represented by the dotted lines.
According to the standards of Gill et al. in "Craniofacial Variation in Forensic Race Identification," (IN: Forensic osteology : advances in the identification of human. Kathleen J. Reichs (ed.); [Springfield, Ill., U.S.A. : Thomas, 1986), a receding chin is typical of the "Negroid phenotype." The Caucasoid chin appears more rounded, with a pear-type shape in lateral view, bilateral and prominent. The chin in persons of African descent is more commonly long and pointed downward with relatively straight lines. As it is usually far reduced from the upper dentition the receding appearance is strong. The following illustration shows a typical Caucasoid chin beside the ethchings of Amenhotep III and Tutankhamen.
Notice not only the receding sharp chin of the two Pharaohs on the right, but also the steep slope from the gonion to the menton along the mandible (the downward slope from the jaw to the chin). In comparison, the mandible of the skull on the left is much less inclined. (Rhine S. Non-metric skull racing. In: Gill GW and Rhine S (eds.): Skeletal attributes of race: Methods for forensic anthropology. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Maxwell Museum,1990;4:9-20; Kowalski CJ, Nasjleti CE, Walker GF. Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations. Angle Orthodontist 1974;44:346-350).
In addition to the abrubt vertical chin and sloping mandible, one can easily recognize the high degree of incisor protrusion found in Tutankhamen and Amenhotep III (see Kowalski et al.; RA Drummond. A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race. Am J Orthod 1968;54:670-682).
The illustration below clearly shows the inclined mandibles; protruding incisors; prognathism and sharp, receding chins of the Pharaohs. The two vertical lines on the left figure show the prognathism of the maxilla and mandible, and receding chin of Thutmose IV. The two innermost lines on the right drawing display the strongly receding chin and alveolar prognathism of Tutankhamen. The two outer lines show the maxillary and mandibular prognathism of Amenhoteop III. The latter's chin is also mostly receding although the pogonion does manner to intersect the plane of A point.
Also noticeable in the heads of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III are the mildly projecting glabellas (the small lump just above the nose and between the brows). These show some relation to the Nubian remains found at Wadi al-Halfa and the SMU sites in Nubia/Sudan.
^^^^^ Claus, are there any significant differences in the analysis here from Manansala compared to the James Harris/Edward Wente book, the source of the information? I'm assuming it mostly corresponds (?)
posted
^I'm not sure that mummy is Nubian, despite its use as an image in that article. It looks European to me, especially looking at the garbs.
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: Claus, are there any significant differences in the analysis here from Manansala compared to the James Harris/Edward Wente book, the source of the information? I'm assuming it mostly corresponds
Even if there are differences, which I don't see happening because there is little to disagree with, Manansala evidently based his observations involving NK royal mummies on easily verifiable descriptions from Anthropological textbooks.
*WM Krogman -- The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine
*S Rhine -- Non-metric skull racing
Other listed sources include:
RA Drummond -- A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race
TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock -- Cephalometric standards for American Negro children
RJ Fonseca, WD Klein -- A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"
CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet, GF Walker -- Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations
A Jacobson -- The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African NegroPosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] ^I'm not sure that mummy is Nubian, despite its use as an image in that article. It looks European to me, especially looking at the garbs.
I did further research on this and I think you are probably right , that on that website somebody may have attached photo of a European mummy to a article on Nubian mummies and the disease, called schistosomiasis
posted
^ I knew there was something wrong with that photo being described as "Nubian". So in other words your lyinass fell for the okie-doke! LOL
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass,: I listed three separate non-corresponding points of view with proper attibution, Manansala, Clyde Winters, and wikipedia
"I would like to add that Dr. Winters is a very helpful scholar. When I had some questions about his works he immediately sent me copies of many of his articles by mail and was ever-ready to answer questions." -Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala ______________________________________
"Clyde Winters has suggested that Linear A and Proto-Sumerian inscriptions along with the associated languages derive from the same (African) source" - Paul Kekai Manansala
The Black identity movement seems to be gaining a lot of popularity among Dalits. And Winters is widely published in South Indian journals. Regards, Paul Kekai Manansala
Okay? And nowhere in the above quotes does it show Manansala supporting any of Clyde's loony theories. All I see is him merely stating what Clyde asserts and evidence of correspondence with him. Manansala can correspond and associate with Winters all he wants, that still doesn't change the fact that all of Manansala's works and writings are not bogged down with pseudo-scholarly rubbish that Winters' work is!
So you fail again lyinass twit. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you can get some quotes direct from the X-ray study by Harris and Wente it would be indeed welcomed.
I have the book.
'Generally, the dentition of each New Kingdom pharoah and queen represents a unique combination of dental characters, such as overbite, overjet, interincisal relationship, and molar relationship, which permits the identification of each mummy from the x-rays of the dentition alone. This observation is not surprising since the teeth or dentition remains one of the most formidable tools available to the forensic specialist. Dental-alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait which is normal for the Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in pharoahs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the Twenty-first Dynasty (fig.9.10). Other royal mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep II had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people of the Western world (fig.9.11).
In summary, then, the pharoahs and queens of the New Kingdom- a period of almost 500 years, were heterogeneous from the viewpoint of facial profile and dental occlusion.' (p332)
'Figure 9.10 The cephalometric x-ray of Thutmose I reveals the prominent dental-alveolar prognathism most frequently observed in both modern and ancient Nubians.'
'Figure 9.11 The x-ray cephalogram of Thutmose IV illustrates the very straight profile and dental overbite relationship characteristic of the Mediterranean populations.'
'It has been argued that Thutmose I was not the son of Amenhotep I, but rather claimed the throne through marriage to his predecessor's sisters (Harris and Weeks 1973). The craniofacial skeleton reveals little similarity between Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, as is apparent in the computerized tracings of the nathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of the Nubians from the ancient cemeteries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm the similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II (Appendix table A1). Certainly Smith and Maspero must be considered correct when they assume that these two mummies must be closely related, but of course they could be brothers as well as father and son.
Further Elliot Smith suggests that Thutmose I is very similar to both Thutmose II and Thutmose III. But after more careful inspection of the craniofacial complex there is a gradient between Thutmose I all the way through Thutmose IV, with the mummy of each of these pharoahs more similar to his immediate predecessor and successor than to any mummies considered in the continuum. Therefore, Thutmose I may be very similar to Thutmose II, while considerably less similar to Thutmose III, who has a straight profile without the protruding dentition and jaws. Amenhotep I and Thutmose IV have even straighter profiles.'(p351-352)
'Figure 10.9a,b The cephalometric x-ray and computerized tracing reveal the remarkable similarity of Thutmose I to Thutmose II.'
'Figure 10.10a,b The prognathic or forward protrusion of the maxilla noted by Elliot Smith in the early Eighteenth Dynasty queens is very evident in the x-rays and tracings of Ahmes-Meryetamon and Ahmes-Nefertary.'
'An X-Ray Atlas Of the Royal Mummies'(1980) James E. Harris and Edward F.Wente
Not sure about the use of the term 'Mediterranean' in this context, but hope you find the above useful.
I think you can find the figures/images in Manansala's analysis.
Thanks Claus. The quote shows that Africans have a wide range of dental traits- and people in the Nile Valley would form part of that diverse range, without automatically needing any "Caucasoids" to explain their diversity. We all know the later dynasties would have a wide range of influences from Medit / Mesopotamia / Nubia /Sahara but that is no reason for automatically assuming a dynastic race replacement, by "mediterraneans" or whomever.. Diverse influences would show up at in the later stages, but there was diversity also in place as an indigenous pattern, and indeed tropical Africans have the greatest phenotypic diversity.. Overbite for example also occurs in some African populations..
"Previous research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits... The fact that sub-Saharan Africans express these apparently plesiomorphic characters, along with additional information on their affinity to other modern populations, evident intra-population heterogeneity, and a world-wide dental cline emanating from the sub-continent, provides further evidence that is consistent with an African origin model." (Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.(2003) Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples. Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44. )
So called "Mediterranean" features are often merely part of the diverse tropical African range, and older citations of "Mediterranean" (the 1960s and 1970s would be among that old style terminology era) sometimes cite Mediterranean" as having a "Negroid tendency" - Carleton Coons no less cites this "tendency".. which Keita ironically finds "interesting." Since obsolete Carelton Coons still seems to be a favorite of numerous racialist types- from Anthroscape to ES, we might as well recap his/their debunking here, just so new readers are clear.
And as Keita notes, in many older studies, skeletal remains with what are classically called "negroid" features have been routinely RECLASSIFIED as "Mediterranean." In fact sometimes so-called "negroid" samples on the ground were EXCLUDED from study write ups, on the grounds that they "shouldn't" be where they were. Now why would that be one wonders, that the dreaded "negroids" are so conveniently deleted, excluded, reclassified and airbrushed away? QUOTE:
"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... "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..." -- (S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The wide support of researchers from many ethnic groups other than Africans brings into question the Euronut claim that the position of an African foundation of Egypt is little more than revisionist history of black and liberal white proponents, intended to uplift the self-worth of African Americans, who supposedly are solely dependent on Ancient Egypt to give them a sense of history prior to the slave trade.
Indeed. The evidence for the African (black) identity of the Egyptians is just too great with such evidence being published in mainstream scientific journals to be a simple social trend of blacks and white liberals. LOL The white racists are nothing more than folks living in flat-earth. several thousand year old-earth creationist type delusions.
quote: Even if there are differences, which I don't see happening because there is little to disagree with, Manansala evidently based his observations involving NK royal mummies on easily verifiable descriptions from Anthropological textbooks.
*WM Krogman -- The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine
*S Rhine -- Non-metric skull racing
Other listed sources include:
RA Drummond -- A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race
TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock -- Cephalometric standards for American Negro children
RJ Fonseca, WD Klein -- A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"
CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet, GF Walker -- Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations
A Jacobson -- The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro
Correct. In fact the purpose of Manansala's work is to disprove the notion that the ancient Egyptians did not meet the racial criteria of "negroid" via those very same mainstream sources on racial identification above! That he uses the racialists own ammunition against them is a brilliant move on his part. No wonder those same Euronuts who complain about P.K.M. never address any of his material! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you can get some quotes direct from the X-ray study by Harris and Wente it would be indeed welcomed.
I have the book. 'Generally, the dentition of each New Kingdom pharoah and queen represents a unique combination of dental characters, such as overbite, overjet, interincisal relationship, and molar relationship, which permits the identification of each mummy from the x-rays of the dentition alone. This observation is not surprising since the teeth or dentition remains one of the most formidable tools available to the forensic specialist. Dental-alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait which is normal for the Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in pharoahs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the Twenty-first Dynasty (fig.9.10). Other royal mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep II had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people of the Western world (fig.9.11).
In summary, then, the pharoahs and queens of the New Kingdom- a period of almost 500 years, were heterogeneous from the viewpoint of facial profile and dental occlusion.' (p332)
'Figure 9.10 The cephalometric x-ray of Thutmose I reveals the prominent dental-alveolar prognathism most frequently observed in both modern and ancient Nubians.'
'Figure 9.11 The x-ray cephalogram of Thutmose IV illustrates the very straight profile and dental overbite relationship characteristic of the Mediterranean populations.'
'It has been argued that Thutmose I was not the son of Amenhotep I, but rather claimed the throne through marriage to his predecessor's sisters (Harris and Weeks 1973). The craniofacial skeleton reveals little similarity between Amenhotep I and Thutmose I, as is apparent in the computerized tracings of the nathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of the Nubians from the ancient cemeteries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm the similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II (Appendix table A1). Certainly Smith and Maspero must be considered correct when they assume that these two mummies must be closely related, but of course they could be brothers as well as father and son.
Further Elliot Smith suggests that Thutmose I is very similar to both Thutmose II and Thutmose III. But after more careful inspection of the craniofacial complex there is a gradient between Thutmose I all the way through Thutmose IV, with the mummy of each of these pharoahs more similar to his immediate predecessor and successor than to any mummies considered in the continuum. Therefore, Thutmose I may be very similar to Thutmose II, while considerably less similar to Thutmose III, who has a straight profile without the protruding dentition and jaws. Amenhotep I and Thutmose IV have even straighter profiles.'(p351-352)
'Figure 10.9a,b The cephalometric x-ray and computerized tracing reveal the remarkable similarity of Thutmose I to Thutmose II.'
'Figure 10.10a,b The prognathic or forward protrusion of the maxilla noted by Elliot Smith in the early Eighteenth Dynasty queens is very evident in the x-rays and tracings of Ahmes-Meryetamon and Ahmes-Nefertary.'
'An X-Ray Atlas Of the Royal Mummies'(1980) James E. Harris and Edward F.Wente
It's funny how many scholars are rather puzzled by the discontinuity in features or lack of resemblance among kings of a single royal family or dynasty, considering that the throne was passed matrilinealy from mother to daughter and that men attain kingship through marriage with royal ladies. This brings into mind studies of the remains of royal women. How much continuity was there between women of the royal family??
P.K.M. via Harris and Wente touch on the issue of the queens here.
quote:Not sure about the use of the term 'Mediterranean' in this context, but hope you find the above useful.
I think you can find the figures/images in Manansala's analysis.
I believe "Mediterranean" here refers to those those early populations of coastal North Africa and the Levant who lived along the Mediterranean coast. I the conclusion section here, an identification or conflation is made between modern Mediterraneans and early Tasians and Natufians. I find that to be very interesting.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Compared to the studies by Harris et al.,of the mummy collections at Giza and Thebes representing the Old and New Kingdom, the royal mummies portray a most heterogeneous sample, that is the individuals in the collection have very different faces and dental occlusion. The most obvious example of malocclusion may be observed in the mummies of Queen Ahmes-Nefertary and Tetisheri (fig. 9.7) of the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasties. These queens have a severe maxillary prognathism with the maxillary dentition (upper teeth) forward of the mandibular dentition (lower teeth) by almost a centimeter more than what would be considered normal or average occlusion (by Egyptian or American standards). It is not possible through x-ray studies alone to determine whether this condition was the result of hereditary, environment (oral habit), or a combination of the two. Certainly the severity of this malocclusion and the close family relationship between these two queens suggest a genetic disposition! This type of malocclusion is frequently seen in Western and/or American populations and represents the majority of patients treated in the orthodontic office. However, oral habits, such as thumb sucking and abnormal tongue position in swallowing, may induce a similar malocclusion (fig. 9.8). Harris et al. have noted that the Nubian people, who have basically a normal molar relationship, may demonstrate an abnormal molar relationship or maxillary prognathism associated with oral habits (fig. 9.9)."(p331-332)
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ From P.K.M.'s royal mummies page: Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans.
Studies have shown that persons of African descent tend to have greater projection of the alveolar region as compared to the lower mouth. The difference in projection measured as ANB (A point-nasion-B point) and research on persons of African descent has shown ranges from 5.5 to 4.3. In comparison with Caucasians, the values were from about 1.5 to 2 times greater (see Alexander et al., 1978; Downs,1948; Fonseca et al.,1978; Steiner, 1959).
Again the irony is that these very same features labeled as "negroid", in this case prognathism, is prominent among Egyptian royals. I've even encountered racists in forums who talk about East African immigrants like Somalis as "buck-teeth" or "brim-teeth" while all the while these same features are found among their beloved Egyptian pharaohs whom they claim as 'Caucasoid'! LMAO But I digress.
That these queens possessed such 'southern' ("negroid") affinities is nothing new. Even Sir Flanders Petrie the so-called 'Father of Egyptology' was puzzled as to why so many royal women had such an appearances and suggested that Egyptian kings favored women "of lower type" [sic]! As for early 18th and late 17th dynasty queens. We know that Ahmes-Nefertari was the founding matriarch of the 18th dynasty and she was the daughter of Ahhotep I, the last queen of the 17th dynasty who was in turn daughter of Tetisheri. So the relations ship between Ahmes-Nefertari and Tetisheri was that of granddaughter and grandmother.
As for the heterogeneity of features among royal mummies of Giza and Thebes, such diversity may well be the result of mixing between the local families of Upper and Lower Egypt after the unification of both realms. I am automatically reminded of the old 1945 Batrawi study: Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Lower Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period.
In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period.
There is a wide gap in our knowledge of the racial history of the two countries during the Christian and Islamic periods, owing to the lack of an adequate amount of relevant material. The study of the available measurements of the living, however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. The mean measurements for the modern Nubians are rather curious. The average cephalic index for them is significantly larger than that for the Egyptians. This is contrary to expectation based on knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient populations. No satisfactory explanation could be suggested.
The distribution of blood groups in present-day Egypt shows that the mass of population is very homogeneous and there are no significant differences, in this respect, between the Moslems and the Copts. Comparisons of head and body measurements suggest the same conclusion.
A. Batrawi, "The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia", The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 75:1945
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Studies have shown that persons of African descent tend to have greater projection of the alveolar region as compared to the lower mouth. The difference in projection measured as ANB (A point-nasion-B point) and research on persons of African descent has shown ranges from 5.5 to 4.3. In comparison with Caucasians, the values were from about 1.5 to 2 times greater (see Alexander et al., 1978; Downs,1948; Fonseca et al.,1978; Steiner, 1959).
I'm confused! The ANB ranges above don't seem to tally with the ANB values given for the Royal mummies in the X-Ray Atlas -
Seqenenre Tao 6.22 Ahmose I 7.5 Amenhotep I 5.56 Thutmose I 10.46 Thutmose II 3.41 Thutmose III 6.1 Amenhotep II 5.5 Thutmose IV 5.84 Amenhotep III 6 Smenkhare 5.41 Seti I 5.49 Ramesses II 6.94 Merenptah 7.5 Seti II 3.7 Ramesses III 7.2 Ramesses IV 6.26 Ramesses V 3.14 Ramesses IX 4.74
Scheme used to determine the skeletal classes as for cephalometric measurements: Steiner's ANB angle and Wits appraisal on standard lateral cephalometric radiograph. **OP= Occlusal plane, N= Nasion, A= Subspinale and B= Supramentale.**
The greater the projection of the alveolar region, the larger the ANB value. According to that piece from Manansala you cited, the ANB range (at least from the studies he cites) is 5.5 to 4.3 which is 1.5 to 2 times greater than 'Caucasians'. So look at the list of ANB values again and you'll see that they are predominantly very high, which is why Manansala wrote: The values here are almost all very high. The mean is 5.9428, which exceeds the means obtained for persons of African descent in previous studies and far exceeds the means obtained for Caucasians. (Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: Their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948;34:812-840; Fonseca RJ, Klein WD. A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women. Am J Orthod 1978;73:152-160; Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959;29:8-29).
Of course the above piece was written in the page showing the ANB values of the kings alone, though you also include the list of values for the queens.
What's interesting is that BOTH kings and queens who have low values originate from the north in the Delta whereas the rest who have high values have ancestry from the south.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always felt conflicted about the NK Pharaonic ANB related data, since it directly contradicts Hanihara's and Petrie's gnathic index data of the proto-Egyptians. Not just in the extremity of the measurements (relatively high mean), but also in the relationships between this Pharaonic sample to Africans and Europeans, as it puts the other African sample in between the Pharaonic and European samples.
Either the 18th dynasty was very dissimilar from the general Egyptian population in this regard, which I'm definitely not ruling out, or the ANB method of measuring prognathism can give drastically different results.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I've always felt conflicted about the NK Pharaonic ANB related data, since it directly contradicts Hanihara's and Petrie's gnathic index data of the proto-Egyptians. Not just in the extremity of the measurements (relatively high mean), but also in the relationships between this Pharaonic sample to Africans and Europeans, as it puts the other African sample in between the Pharaonic sample and Europeans.
Either the 18th dynasty was very dissimilar from the general Egyptian population in this regard, which I'm definitely not ruling out, or the ANB method of measuring prognathism can give drastically different results.
I would go with the latter. Probably Hanihara et al were measuring a different form of prognathism (e.g. mandibular or maxillary) from the alveolar prognathism revealed by the ANB.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Here are the lists of ANB values with those that significantly exceed the range given for Africans (5.5) emboldened.
Seqenenre Tao 6.22 Ahmose I 7.5 Amenhotep I 5.56 Thutmose I 10.46 Thutmose II 3.41 Thutmose III 6.1 Amenhotep II 5.5 Thutmose IV 5.84 Amenhotep III 6 Smenkhare 5.41 Seti I 5.49 Ramesses II 6.94 Merenptah 7.5 Seti II 3.7 Ramesses III 7.2 Ramesses IV 6.26 Ramesses V 3.14 Ramesses IX 4.74
The first on the list of kings is Seqenenra Tao, though by no means does he even have the highest ANB value which is held by Thutmose I.
James Harris in his book X-raying the Pharaohs (1973) wrote the following on Seqenenra Tao: "His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination"
Clause already cited from the book X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies that the royal skulls even of the New Kingdom were quite heterogeneous and as I stated this heterogeneity may very well be in part due to mixing between individuals perhaps of different populations. I already cited A. Batrawi and even Manansala agrees "The New Kingdom royal mummies suggest that the Pharaohs were continuing to intermix, both with people from the north and the south." Of course the list of queens is shorter than that of the kings which might give a skewed image but one may still notice the pairings. Take for example the values between Seqenenra and his wife Tetisheri, with the latter being significantly smaller. The same is true of Ramses II and his wife Nefertary. What's interesting is though these queens have low ANB values, in other cranial features they are described as very "southern" in appearance and the same is true with queens Nodjma and Esemkhebe.
Manansala also wrote: The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding.
The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans
You can read the rest here.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I've always felt conflicted about the NK Pharaonic ANB related data, since it directly contradicts Hanihara's and Petrie's gnathic index data of the proto-Egyptians. Not just in the extremity of the measurements (relatively high mean), but also in the relationships between this Pharaonic sample to Africans and Europeans, as it puts the other African sample in between the Pharaonic sample and Europeans.
Either the 18th dynasty was very dissimilar from the general Egyptian population in this regard, which I'm definitely not ruling out, or the ANB method of measuring prognathism can give drastically different results.
I would go with the latter. Probably Hanihara et al were measuring a different form of prognathism (e.g. mandibular or maxillary) from the alveolar prognathism revealed by the ANB.
Hanihara also measured alveolar prognathism. But the gnathic index Hanihara et al measured, measures alveolar prognathism as subnasal projection relative to the nasion, while ANB measures alveolar prognathism as subnasal projection relative to point B. The latter also uses the nasion and a landmark, but most of the ANB value probably comes from the distance between A & B.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Scheme used to determine the skeletal classes as for cephalometric measurements: Steiner's ANB angle and Wits appraisal on standard lateral cephalometric radiograph. **OP= Occlusal plane, N= Nasion, A= Subspinale and B= Supramentale.**
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: Don't know if this of interest -
"Compared to the studies by Harris et al.,of the mummy collections at Giza and Thebes representing the Old and New Kingdom, the royal mummies portray a most heterogeneous sample, that is the individuals in the collection have very different faces and dental occlusion. The most obvious example of malocclusion may be observed in the mummies of Queen Ahmes-Nefertary and Tetisheri (fig. 9.7) of the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasties. These queens have a severe maxillary prognathism with the maxillary dentition (upper teeth) forward of the mandibular dentition (lower teeth) by almost a centimeter more than what would be considered normal or average occlusion (by Egyptian or American standards). It is not possible through x-ray studies alone to determine whether this condition was the result of hereditary, environment (oral habit), or a combination of the two. Certainly the severity of this malocclusion and the close family relationship between these two queens suggest a genetic disposition! This type of malocclusion is frequently seen in Western and/or American populations and represents the majority of patients treated in the orthodontic office. However, oral habits, such as thumb sucking and abnormal tongue position in swallowing, may induce a similar malocclusion (fig. 9.8). Harris et al. have noted that the Nubian people, who have basically a normal molar relationship, may demonstrate an abnormal molar relationship or maxillary prognathism associated with oral habits (fig. 9.9)."(p331-332)
Good find. These data then show that the "Western" pattern may not be due to any "Western" or "middle eastern" influx at all, but oral habits of the native peoples- i.e. the Nubians.
Posts: 27 | From: Birmingham's Black Country | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans.
SNA values
Seqenenre Tao 84.55 Ahmose I 82.0 Amenhotep I 88.47 Thutmose I 87.57 Thutmose II 78.23 Thutmose III 77.1 Amenhotep II 86.5 Thutmose IV 87.45 Amenhotep III 85.00 Smenkhare 85.18 Seti I 79.70 Ramesses II 80.77 Merenptah 80.00 Seti II 77.5 Ramesses III 77.5 Ramesses IV 87.14 Ramesses V 78.75 Ramesses IX 73.71
Tetisheri 86.35 Nefertary 73.47 Sitkamos 85.76 Meryetamon 85.5 (no ANB value listed) Tjuya 80.31 Tiye 74.44 Tawosret 84.59 Nodjma 77.89 Makare 73.20 Henttowy 80.31 Esemkhebe 75.06
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans
My quote should have read
quote: The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans.
As we know, Seti I and the rest are 19th Dynasty onward. My rendering gave the impression that the 84.21 figure was based on all the individuals listed beneath the quote, not the 17th and 18th dynasty mummies.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just noticed that the book also gives cranial indexes. From a quick googling, it seems that this can be used to categorise head shape, including dolichocephalism. Is that right?
Seqenenre Tao 0.68 Ahmose I 0.68 Amenhotep I NA Thutmose I 0.72 Thutmose II 0.71 Thutmose III 0.61 Amenhotep II 0.70 Thutmose IV 0.71 Amenhotep III 0.72 Smenkhare 0.74 Seti I 0.68 Ramesses II 0.68 Merenptah 0.74 Seti II 0.69 Siptah 0.64 (No ANB, SNA available) Ramesses III 0.73 Ramesses IV 0.72 Ramesses V 0.71 Ramesses IX 0.71
From what I've googled, dolichocephalism is defined by having a relatively long head with a cephalic index of under 75. I'm guessing that the way the index results have been recorded in the X-Ray Atlas (e.g. 0.75, or .75 instead of 75) is just an alternative way of writing it, but corrections and clarifications welcome.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Not only was dolichocephaly prevalent among the Kemetian royals but even hyper-dolichocephaly was not uncommon among them as it is among many Africans.
Take for example King Tut:
For modern comparison:
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ^ Not only was dolichocephaly prevalent among the Kemetian royals but even hyper-dolichocephaly was not uncommon among them as it is among many Africans.
Ok. So of the 29 mummies listed, 25 were dolichocephalic.
Of the 28 results listed for ANB values, 22 either fell within the range for persons of African descent, or exceeded it.
For the SNA values, 12 exceeded the figure of 84.21, which is the figure cited as comparable with African-Americans.
The following didn't register as dolichocephalic Tetisheri .79 Meryetamon .78 Tiye .76 Makare .77
However, they were either comparable with the 84.21 SNA value for African-Americans
Tetisheri 86.35 Meryetamon 85.5
or fell within/exceeded the ANB range for people of African descent (5.5 to 4.3)
Tiye 6.54 Makare 8.74
Does anyone have the cranial index for Tutankhamun? It's not in the book.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: ^ Not only was dolichocephaly prevalent among the Kemetian royals but even hyper-dolichocephaly was not uncommon among them as it is among many Africans.
"One of the obvious features of Marfan syndrome is dolichocephaly.17-19 With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index,70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly."
Uh?!
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Xyyman already posted that citation back in 2010, around the time when the original DNA results came out. Its patently impossible that Tut's or KV55's (Akhenaten) head is brachycranic. Its was (co)-authored by Hawass. Anything he says should be looked at with a grain of salt. It literally flies into the face of all earlier anatomists and forensic researchers (i.e. those that did the reconstructions) who talked about Tut's skull classified him as dolichocranic. Some even went as far as saying their narrow skull is indicative of pathology. Hawass et al just don't realize how much they look like incompetent clowns when they publish this sort of crap.
That being said, Tut's head doesn't strike me as hyperdolichocranic either. It doesn't look that narrow.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: [QB] [QUOTE] ^ Not only was dolichocephaly prevalent among the Kemetian royals but even hyper-dolichocephaly was not uncommon among them as it is among many Africans.
note: Swenet was under the name kalonji at that time
____________________________________________
e cephalic index or cranial index is the ratio of the maximum width of the head of an organism multiplied by 100 divided by its maximum length (i.e., in the horizontal plane, or front to back).
male 75.9 = dolichocephalic male 81.1= brachycephalic
"Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly."
I think the answer may be that he had a unique head shape. Elongated in a side view but wide at the same time.
^^^ not like this
^^^Look at the first cube at left cut in half horizontally The cut in half portion would be equally wide and long, still square in a top view shown below in black not dolichocephalic. -Yet the side view would be elongated, twice as long as it is high
In contrast a quarter cube:
^^^^ Here the top view is not square and the side view is also not square, dolichocephalic in both views
dolichocephalic skulls are typicially more elongated in both positions
If you look at the oval diagram of dolichocephaly it is a top view. So the elongated impression one gets in a side view is not really what dolichocephaly is defined by. It just so happens dolichocephalic skulls look elongated in a side view but brachycephalic skulls can alos look very elongated form the side - yet not from a top cross section where they look wide and that is the measurement which defines it. Tutankhamun is brachycephalic. His head appears very elongated, dolichocephalic, in the side view -but Cephalic index is not determined by that side view
^^^^ a cross section of Tutankhamun's head looking from above would not look like this it would be much wider, relatively closer to a circle than this is - brachycephalic
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: the elongated impression one gets in a side view is not really what dolichocephaly is defined by. It just so happens dolichocephalic skulls look elongated in a side view but brachycephalic skulls can alos look very elongated form the side - yet not from a top cross section where they look wide and that is the measurement which defines it. Tutankhamun is brachycephalic. His head appears very elongated, dolichocephalic, in the side view -but Cephalic index is not determined by that side view
OK. That makes sense. Are there any images which give a greater 'overview' of Tut's head?
This one's not great, but it might give a better sense that there's more to the width of the head than the impression given by the cranial profile
Anyway, after reading what AlTakruri said in the 2010 thread, dolichocephalism on it's own doesn't seem to be enough to confirm an African population affiliation. He said:
“Cephalic index isn't even worth a rack to hang a hat on.”
“Head shape is unrelated to skin colour or continental origin."
“I see nothing that makes dolichocephaly a reliable indicator of an individual being one of Africa's blacks nor brachycephaly barring an individual from that rank.
Neither of the cephalic indices that opened this discussion bear out the contentions they were given for adducing either continental origin or blackness. measurements”
“Nowadays when one needs to assess a skull's affinities to a regional or restricted population one uses a choice of select craniometric canonical variates as discriminatin functions like
This level of information is not provided in Hawass(2010)which instead gives us cephalic index which, for whatever value it does have, is useless in ascertaining population affinities.”
How many of those craniometric canonical variates would one have to record to assert population affiliation?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
^^^ Tut's skull looks wide in the CT scan front view as I was talking about
^^^ however the mummy doesn't look so wide. The two photos proportions look quite different in a few ways even accounting for tissue on the mummy. I can't explain why
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by lioness: I think the answer may be that he had a unique head shape. Elongated in a side view but wide at the same time.
But elongated doesn't just refer to length in this sense. Tut's cranial maximum length is not lengthy at all in absolute length. Elongated in this sense is a proportion that describes breadth relative to length, just like nasal index. If you notice, there is also a (slight) discrepancy between Hawass' CI data of Tuthmoses II compared to Harris and Wente's data.
quote: Originally posted by claus3600: Anyway, after reading what AlTakruri said in the 2010 thread, dolichocephalism on it's own doesn't seem to be enough to confirm an African population affiliation. He said:
I agree with him, in the sense that it comprises of just two variables that aren't powerful discriminators by themselves. For instance, some Nubian C group samples had reported relatively high CI indices compared to other Nubian samples (I believe it was in the area of 76% as an average), but this doesn't separate them from the other Nubian samples (who were generally closer to 70%) to a significant degree in multivariate analysis. However, maximal breadth and maximal length as individual variables are just as contributive as any other cranio-facial measurement; they're certainly not subordinate to the other ones. That isn't the issue though. The issue is, whether Hawass' measurements are accurate or not.
quote:For a group of investigators concerned with human craniofacial variation and malocclusion, the differences in the faces and skulls in the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens were especially intriguing. This was hardly a homogeneous sample, and there were great differences both within and between the dynastic periods. The most heterogeneous grouping was that of the XVIII dynasty. What all of these mummies have in common is a tong head or cranium (dolichocephalic) and a relatively delicate face, compared with the mummies of the XIX and XX dynasties and Old Kingdom mummies that our group has
Note that the sampled royals include both Tutankhamun and what Hawass calls 'Akhenaton' (the latter is named 'Smenkhare' here), but unfortunately, they didn't disclose their CI related measurements.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
8 March, 2005, Cairo. Farouk Hosni, Minister of Culture, announced today that the Egyptian team has finished their examination of a non-invasive CT scan of Tutankhamun’s mummy. Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, states that there is no evidence that the young king was murdered. The scientific team, which reviewed over 17,000 images, was headed by Dr. Hawass, and consisted of radiologists, pathologists, and anatomists under the oversight of Dr. Madiha Khattab, Dean of Medicine at Cairo University.
Results of the CT Scan
"Skull Shape. Tutankhamun had a very elongated (dolichocephalic) skull. The cranial sutures are not prematurely fused, so this is most likely due to normal anthropological variation rather than any pathology."
^^^^ here they call the skull dolichocephalic.
___________________________________________________ That contradicts the 2010 PDF Claus mentioned:
"Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly."
_______________________________
^^^^ why the contradiction, I don't know. The press release also says:
Previous Examinations The mummy of the young king had been essential dismantled by Carter’s team, who were interested primarily in recovering the almost 150 jewels, amulets, and other items wrapped with the body and gaining the maximum possible scientific information from the body itself. In order to remove the objects from the body and the body from the coffin, to which it was stuck fast by the hardened embalming liquids (most likely resins) used to anoint the mummy, Carter’s team cut the body into a number of large and small pieces (for example, the trunk was cut in half, the arms and legs were detached). The head, cemented by the solidified resins to the golden mask, was severed, and removed from the mask with hot knives. Carter placed the mummy back in the tomb in 1926. The mummy has been X-rayed twice since this time, once in 1968 by a team from the University of Liverpool under R.G. Harrison, and once in 1978 by J.E. Harris of the University of Michigan.
_____________________________
83.9 Cephalic index is raw data listed in the 2010 PDF brachycephalic by definition
Did R.G. Harrison 1968 or J.E. Harris measure this also getting a same or differrent figure? I don't know
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Leave it to the lyinass to befuddle the issue.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/691172/cephalic-index#ref1075852 cephalic index, the percentage of breadth to length in any skull. The index is calculated from measurement of the diameters of the skull. The length of the skull is the distance from the glabella (the midpoint between the brows) and the most projecting point at the back of the head. The breadth of the skull is the distance between the most projecting points at the sides of the head, usually a little above and behind the ears. The cephalic index is the breadth multiplied by 100 divided by the length. dolichocephaly, An index of less than 75 means that the skull is long and narrow when seen from the top; such skulls are called dolichocephalic and are typical of Australian aborigines and native southern Africans. mesaticephaly/mesocephaly, An index of 75 to 80 means that the skull is nearly oval; such skulls are called mesaticephalic and are typical of Europeans and the Chinese. brachycephaly, A skull having an index of over 80 is broad and short, and is called brachycephalic; such skulls are common among Mongolians and the Andaman Islanders.Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
But I digress.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic