User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Barry Kemp unpooled cranio-facial Dendrogram revisited67 days old

  1. #1
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:31
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,820
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default Barry Kemp unpooled cranio-facial Dendrogram revisited

    So I know Afrocentrists like this dendrogram because it shows Ancient Egyptians very different from Ancient Europeans (Ancient-Modern Greeks), but I see that Dynastic Ancient Egyptians are closer to 8th century BC Levantines (Lachish) to than to modern Tigre or (most) Ancient Nubians. So saying the Ancient Egyptians have overlap with Ancient Nubians is true, but the dynastic Ancient Egyptians also have overlap with Ancient Levantines. This particular dendrogram also has very little samples from Early Lower Egypt btw....The Sedment sample is from the 1st intermediate period (right between Old and Middle Kingdom).




    Also, remember when I called Keita a cherry picker regarding the samples he used in his 2005 study. I'm right. He always cherry picks the predynastic Upper Egyptians.

    From Keita 1993, in his critique of Brace 1993

    "Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993)

    I don't have access to this study, but who wants to bet he's using Predynastic Upper Egyptians as his reference for "Ancient Egyptians" as a whole?


    So yeah, I see a clinal population craniofacially, at least. I'm not even sure where this study comes from..I think it's German or something, and i'm not even sure how many metrical variables they are using...... but Barry Kemp features it in his 2005 book.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2019-07-12 at 22:13.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #2
    Established Member
    Archangel Game Theory's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    5,764
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a7a
    mtDNA
    L4b2
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Sudanid
    Metaethnos
    American
    Ethnicity
    Afro-American
    Phenotype
    New World Black
    Politics
    Center-right
    Religion
    Church of Christ
    United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    So I know Afrocentrists like this dendrogram because it shows Ancient Egyptians very different from Ancient Europeans (Ancient-Modern Greeks), but I see that Dynastic Ancient Egyptians are closer to 8th century BC Levantines (Lachish) to than to modern Tigre or Ancient Nubians. So saying Ancient Egyptians have overlap with Ancient Nubians is true, but the dynastic Ancient Egyptians also have overlap with Ancient Levantines. This particular dendrogram also has very little samples from Early Lower Egypt btw....The Sedment sample is from the 1st intermediate period (right between Old and Middle Kingdom).




    Also, remember when I called Keita a cherry picker regarding the samples he used in his 2005 study. I'm right. He always cherry picks the predynastic Upper Egyptians.

    From Keita 1993, in his critique of Brace 1993

    "Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993)

    I don't have access to this study, but who wants to bet he's using Predynastic Upper Egyptians as his reference for "Ancient Egyptians" as a whole.


    So yeah, I see a clinal population craniofacially, at least. I'm not even sure where this study comes from..I think it's German or something, and i'm not even sure how many metrical variables they are using...... but Barry Kemp features it in his 2005 book.
    Note: Some of the Lachish crania show affinity with Egyptians and are indicative of an Egypto-Nubian presence in Lachish. Keita even has a study on Lachish crania, so don't be so swift to want to blast Afrocentrists when you lack information telling all of the facts. Keita did not cherry pick his samples and he has studied Naqada, Badarian, and Late Dynastic crania. Brace only analyzed Naqada and Late Dynastic crania


    Lastly, stop half ass paraphrasing Keita's studies to refute so called Afrocentrists. I have Barry Kemps book, and in his book he noted that the Late Dynastic crania were closer to Levantines and that the Predynastic and Early Dynastic crania were closer to more southerly Africans. Called your bluff and your lying out. It was also in Barry Kemp's book that he stated that the limb ratios/body proportions of predynastic LOWER Egyptian crania were African and showed no close relationships with Levantine/Syrians,

    It's quite obvious that you can't read a dendogram. You're sounding just like racialreality
    Last edited by Game Theory; 2019-07-12 at 19:08.
    We Wuz Kerma Kangz delusion..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Meygaag View Post
    You @beyoku @HabariTess @Roseai are the ones claiming people that have nothing to do with them.I'm a Cushitic descendant of the Sudan and an heir to all it's civilizations while you descend from Ebola stricken negroes from the Congo forest that eat albinos in order to gain superpowers lmao

  4. #3
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:31
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,820
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    Note: Some of the Lachish crania show affinity with Egyptians and are indicative of an Egypto-Nubian presence in Lachish. Keita even has a study on Lachish crania, so don't be so swift to want to blast Afrocentrists when you lack information telling all of the facts. Keita did not cherry pick his samples and he has studied Naqada, Badarian, and Late Dynastic crania. Brace only analyzed Naqada and Late Dynastic crania


    Lastly, stop half ass paraphrasing Keita's studies to refute so called Afrocentrists. I have Barry Kemps book, and in his book he noted that the Late Dynastic crania were closer to Levantines and that the Predynastic and Early Dynastic crania were closer to more southerly Africans. Called your bluff and your lying out. It was also in Barry Kemp's book that he stated that the limb ratios/body proportions of predynastic LOWER Egyptian crania were African and showed no close relationships with Levantine/Syrians,

    Ohh I see, Black Levantines now. But you're laughing a fool's laugh. There's no real modern evidence for that at all.

    "the proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht." (Ullinger et al. 2005)

    https://www3.nd.edu/~sheridan/Dothan.pdf



    And in the ancient genetic record we have, there is no evidence for Black Levantines at all.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2019-07-12 at 21:22.

  5. #4
    Established Member
    Archangel Game Theory's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    5,764
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a7a
    mtDNA
    L4b2
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Sudanid
    Metaethnos
    American
    Ethnicity
    Afro-American
    Phenotype
    New World Black
    Politics
    Center-right
    Religion
    Church of Christ
    United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Ohh I see, Black Levantines now. But you're laughing a fool's laugh. There's no real modern evidence for that at all.

    "the proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht." (Ullinger et al. 2005)

    https://www3.nd.edu/~sheridan/Dothan.pdf



    And in the ancient genetic record we have, this is no evidence for Black Levantines at all.
    man you're stupid, Keita's study is using cranial measurements and morphometrics, the study you cited is on dental NON METRIC traits. It doesn't refute what Keita says as there was a Nubian population that craniometrically clustered with SSAs, but on the basis of dental traits thats clustered with more Northerly Africans
    We Wuz Kerma Kangz delusion..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Meygaag View Post
    You @beyoku @HabariTess @Roseai are the ones claiming people that have nothing to do with them.I'm a Cushitic descendant of the Sudan and an heir to all it's civilizations while you descend from Ebola stricken negroes from the Congo forest that eat albinos in order to gain superpowers lmao

  6. #5
    Established Member
    Archangel Game Theory's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    5,764
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a7a
    mtDNA
    L4b2
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Sudanid
    Metaethnos
    American
    Ethnicity
    Afro-American
    Phenotype
    New World Black
    Politics
    Center-right
    Religion
    Church of Christ
    United States

    Default

    BTW, to argue that the lachish crania show no affinity with Egyptians is a case of you contradicting yourself? Here is what you just said:

    but I see that Dynastic Ancient Egyptians are closer to 8th century BC Levantines (Lachish) to than to modern Tigre or Ancient Nubians.
    But now you just said:


    the proposal that Lachish was comprised of Egyptian immigrants (Risdon, 1939) was not supported. Rather, the current findings support the theory that the people of Lachish were indigenous to the southern Levant (Keith, 1940; Arensburg, 1973; Arensburg et al., 1980; Smith, 1995), as Dothan and Lachish were both significantly different from Lisht." (Ullinger et al. 2005)
    Keita's position was never a "black Levantines" position if you read his study. He stated that some of the Lachish, SOME, had Egypto-Nubian affinity, which supports the MILITARY presence of Egypto-Nubians. Stop building up damn strawmen to knock down by suggesting that someone mentioned Black Levantines, ie, indigenous ones. Non metric traits measure bumps, notches, grooves, etc not phenotye,
    We Wuz Kerma Kangz delusion..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Meygaag View Post
    You @beyoku @HabariTess @Roseai are the ones claiming people that have nothing to do with them.I'm a Cushitic descendant of the Sudan and an heir to all it's civilizations while you descend from Ebola stricken negroes from the Congo forest that eat albinos in order to gain superpowers lmao

  7. #6
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:31
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,820
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Game Theory View Post
    man you're stupid, Keita's study is using cranial measurements and morphometrics, the study you cited is on dental NON METRIC traits. It doesn't refute what Keita says as there was a Nubian population that craniometrically clustered with SSAs, but on the basis of dental traits thats clustered with more Northerly Africans
    Yeah so what? I never said Keita's study which I quoted in the OP was wrong. I said he cherry picked his samples and his samples don't tell the whole story..........which he does. Where's the predynastic Lower Egyptian crania? How about Old Kingdom Egypt when Lower and Upper Egypt homogenized together? He doesnt speak anything on them.

    BTW, Keita 1993 is using Lachish as a Near Eastern population reference. So now you're calling Keita stupid too...not just myself. So really have no argument. Kemp's dendrogram shows most Ancient Dynastic Egyptians closer to the ancient Levant than to most Nubians.


    BTW, to argue that the lachish crania show no affinity with Egyptians is a case of you contradicting yourself? Here is what you just said
    Of course they show cranio-metric affinity to Egyptians, they're a non Black Southern Levantine population. And the Egyptians are a non Black Afro-Asiatic group living right next door to them and quite related to them it seems. But they're not actual Egyptians as proven by their dental affinities. Dumbass. This isn't hard to comprehend.

    If you have proof Lachish are Egyptians or Lachish are very very distinct from other Levantine groups of their time and are related cranio-metrically to Nubians before other Levantines.....you're more than welcome to prove it.


    It was also in Barry Kemp's book that he stated that the limb ratios/body proportions of predynastic LOWER Egyptian crania were African and showed no close relationships with Levantine/Syrians,
    "limb ratios/body proportions" of predynastic Lower Egyptian CRANIA?

    Just quit man, you're embarrassing yourself

    The tropical limbs stuff was already debunked 7 years ago. No Egyptians Lower or Upper have tropical Bi-iliac breadth. Telling me they have tropical limbs is no secret or nothing I havent known for over a decade.

    http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=29562
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2019-07-12 at 22:21.

  8. #7
    Established Member
    Archangel Game Theory's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    5,764
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a7a
    mtDNA
    L4b2
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Sudanid
    Metaethnos
    American
    Ethnicity
    Afro-American
    Phenotype
    New World Black
    Politics
    Center-right
    Religion
    Church of Christ
    United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Hades View Post
    Yeah so what? I never said Keita's study which I quoted in the OP was wrong. I said he cherry picked his samples and his samples don't tell the whole story..........which he does. Where's the predynastic Lower Egyptian crania? How about Old Kingdom Egypt when Lower and Upper Egypt homogenized together? He doesnt speak anything on them.
    You have never read any of Keita's studies and the intent of what he was studying and you accuse him of cherrypicking, Keita has studied not only predynastics, but also 1st Dynasty crania from Abydos, Sedement, which are both Dynastic Egyptian crania, this proves you don't know what they hell you are talking about. Brace never studied predynastic Lower Egyptian crania, but he did study the Late dyanstic Lower Egyptian crania, you never accused him of cherrypicking, You don't even understand Kemp's dendogram, it doesn't support you.




    BTW, Keita 1993 is using Lachish as a Near Eastern population reference. So now you're calling Keita stupid too...not just myself. So really have no argument. Kemp's dendrogram shows most Ancient Dynastic Egyptians closer to the ancient Levant than to most Nubians.
    Kemp's dendogram does NOT show what you are saying, he even said in his book that the Later Dynastic Egyptian crania clustered with Levantines, he never said most ancient Dynastic crania clustered with ancient Levantines, that shows how dumb you are and how you can't read, you looked at the dendogram, misunderstood it, and ran you mouth off.

    As for the Lachish crania, lol, Keita did a study on Lachish crania and had these conclusions:

    The Lachish series is found to plot nearest the Maghreb and “E” series, both of whose centroids plot nearer the Romano-British groups than any of the other series; the D2 value between these series is significant as previously noted. Examination of the classification results when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the “E” series receives the plurality, with the Maghreb series re- ceiving a very small percentage. The results seem to indicate that the morphometric patterns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice. This suggests that the Lachish series might contain crania from these areas

    And


    In conclusion, the Lachish series centroid plots near those of the Maghreb and E series, the latter's morphometrics known to overlap with eastern Mediterranean crania. However, Keith's problem is illustrated because this mean value hides the variation revealed by the analysis of the series as individual unknown crania, and shows many to have strong resemblances to more southern (both Egyptian and non-Egyptian) series even when Lachish is
    a choice. It is possible to say that the objective evidence does not deny an hypothesis of biological heterogene- ity in some general sense at Lachish, which specific historical and archaeological data unequivocably predict. It is suggested that the Egypto-Nubian presence is supported
    An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions
    American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1988
    S. O. Keita






    Of course they show cranio-metric affinity to Egyptians, they're a non Black Southern Levantine population. And the Egyptians are a non Black Afro-Asiatic group living right next door to them and quite related to them it seems. But they're not actual Egyptians as proven by their dental affinities. Dumbass. This isn't hard to comprehend.
    Dumbass, see the study I just referenced above. The dental study was done with NON-METRIC traits, do you know what NON-METRIC traits are? Its not talking about phenotype, its talking about the frequency of bumps, notches, and grooves, how damn dumb can you be? Crania mertically Somalis do not cluster with West Africans and Bantus, but in non metric traits they do cluster closer, are you telling me that one study debunks the other? Dumbass.

    If you have proof Lachish are Egyptians or Lachish are very very distinct from other Levantine groups of their time and are related cranio-metrically to Nubians before other Levantines.....you're more than welcome to prove it.
    Don't starwman me to death dumbass, I said that SOME of the Lachish crania clustered closer to Egypto-Nubians because a of a military occupation consistent with Egyptians and Nubians being stationed there, don't try to distort and set up a strawman argument to be knocked down.




    "limb ratios/body proportions" of predynastic Lower Egyptian CRANIA?
    Yep from the same Barry Kemp book you posted that dendogram from that you think(mistakenly) supports you.



    The tropical limbs stuff was already debunked 7 years ago. No Egyptians Lower or Upper have tropical Bi-iliac breadth. Telling me they have tropical limbs is no secret or nothing I havent known for over a decade.
    It was NOT debunked 7 years ago, again, your reading and understanding of that stuidy is about as on point as your understanding of Kemp's dendogram.
    We Wuz Kerma Kangz delusion..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Meygaag View Post
    You @beyoku @HabariTess @Roseai are the ones claiming people that have nothing to do with them.I'm a Cushitic descendant of the Sudan and an heir to all it's civilizations while you descend from Ebola stricken negroes from the Congo forest that eat albinos in order to gain superpowers lmao

  9. #8
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:31
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,820
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    Dumbass, see the study I just referenced above. The dental study was done with NON-METRIC traits, do you know what NON-METRIC traits are? Its not talking about phenotype, its talking about the frequency of bumps, notches, and grooves, how damn dumb can you be? Crania mertically Somalis do not cluster with West Africans and Bantus, but in non metric traits they do cluster closer, are you telling me that one study debunks the other? Dumbass.
    yet the 2005 study i reference still came to this conclusion.

    "The results of this dental morphology study indicate biological continuity in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age transition in the southern Levant. The similarity between Tell Dothan and Lachish suggests that the two are more closely related to each other than to other sites in the Mediterranean region. There is no dental morphological evidence of major population replacement at either Dothan or Lachish between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Pooling the time periods from both sites also shows no significant difference. Therefore, these data do not support the model of the “Israelite conquest” or the introduction of a distinct group of immigrants who populated the southern Levant during the Iron Age".


    https://www3.nd.edu/~sheridan/Dothan.pdf

    So if there is a major Egyptian genetic impact on the Southern Levant we don't see it dentally. If they are Egyptian logic should say they should have the same teeth too, no? But they are showing dental continuity to earlier Levantine populations and not to Egyptian ones.

    Keita 88 conclusion is simply outdated. Another thing, the thing he did with the Lachish, can easily be done with the Ancient Egyptians themselves.

    "Egypt’s central location between Europe, the Middle East, and Africa likely contributed to its genetic diversity. Numerous studies have analyzed population variation of Ancient Egyptians to establish their origins. Debate about its affinity has historically focused on ancestry and the effects of migration into Egypt from the Nubian corridor, Red Sea littoral, and the eastern Mediterranean. While these regions surely contributed to Egypt’s diversity, few studies have examined how this manifested in a particular location. What might the “local data” indicate about the broader implications of diverse morphometric expression? For this research, 16 cranial measurements were collected from 3D computed tomography models of 25 Egyptian mummies, most of which originated from Akhmim and primarily date to the Ptolemaic Period. Individuals were classified using discriminant function analysis and cluster analysis into the Howells’ Craniometric Data Bank. These results were then situated within our current understanding of Egyptian population affinity. The results suggest a high degree of heterogeneity. Seven individuals classified as Egyptian, while three classified into another African group and nine classified into Asian groups. Using cluster analysis, most individuals grouped within Howells’ Egyptians with the exception of one. The proximity of the Arabian Peninsula to Egypt and the narrowness of the Red Sea likely facilitated the migration of populations from Eastern and Western Asia into Egypt. The high percentage of individuals (36%) that classified into an Asian group rather than the Egyptian, African, or European samples may also suggest a greater influx of groups from the East then previously considered."


    https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/handle/1993/23992


    Yep from the same Barry Kemp book you posted that dendogram from that you think(mistakenly) supports you.
    There's no such thing as limb ratio / body proportion data on 'crania'. Show me the cranio-facial data of Lower Egyptians ever coming closer to much more Southernly Africans than to Levantines. Keita never shows that as far as I know.

    And I know how to read a dendrogram. Kemp's dendrogram shows most Dynastic Egyptians clustering closer to Ancient Southern Levantines than to most ancient Nubians or the Tigre. So now you're praying Ancient Levantines are Black. I mean you are getting very desperate now, mate.

    Sorry there is no such thing as "Egyptian civilization" without massive West Eurasian genetic influence which has been present in North Africa since the Epipaleolithic. Hell, even the Nubians will have a bunch, the Egyptians will have that much more.


    but also 1st Dynasty crania from Abydos, Sedement, which are both Dynastic Egyptian crania, this proves you don't know what they hell you are talking about
    Abydos is Upper Egypt. He has cranio-metric data from early Dynastic Lower Egyptians from Sedment? What did he say of them? Whom did he compare them too? I'm actually curious.


    Don't starwman me to death dumbass, I said that SOME of the Lachish crania clustered closer to Egypto-Nubians because a of a military occupation consistent with Egyptians and Nubians being stationed there, don't try to distort and set up a strawman argument to be knocked down.
    Of course, cause you know it's an impossible challenge. I didn't straw man you, I gave you a challenge. Keita 88's conclusions are outdated. Perhaps he would come to a different conclusion if he had Dental data available to him from my 2005 study? What happened to your multidisciplinary approach?

    Ohh btw, regarding Dental Non metric traits..they're important.

    "Nonmetric dental traits are highly controlled by genetics and are relatively free of sex- and age-bias (Scott and Turner, 1997). Therefore, phenetic (phenotypic) similarity can be said to approximate genetic similarity.The analysis of biological relatedness using dental nonmetric traits has proven reliable even in commingled samples when standardized procedures are followed (Scott and Turner, 1997). Frequencies of traits present at Dothan were therefore analyzed for both periods, and compared to those for the Lachish collection. Regional and temporal comparisons were made in order to ascertain variation in southern Levantine groups during the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age transition."

    The Lachish are simply indigenous Levantines. That was the whole purpose of the study, was to see if they were or not.



    Don't starwman me to death dumbass, I said that SOME of the Lachish crania clustered closer to Egypto-Nubians because a of a military occupation consistent with Egyptians and Nubians being stationed there, don't try to distort and set up a strawman argument to be knocked down.
    Wow, I guess everyone was stationed in the 8th Century BC Southern Levant. Even Englishmen from Poundbury? There's individual overlap with Englishmen too!

    Keita 1988's conclusions are simply outdated and have been refuted by the 2005 dental metric study. He didn't even word them rather confidently/unreservedly anyway ie

    "It is possible to say that the objective evidence does not deny an hypothesis of biological heterogeneity in some general sense at Lachish
    "
    ...sounds like he's just presented it as possibility...his data simply doesn't deny the hypothesis.

    But now with Dental Metrical data available, It's obvious to me Lachish just have the classic cranio-metric variability we see in every population. The same thing could be done with the Egyptians themselves as I have shown, or really any population.

    So yeah, the evidence as a whole suggests the Egyptian-Lachish craniometric affinity long predates Egyptian occupation of the Levant and has more to do with common prehistoric origins. Saying it comes from a diffusion of historical Egyptians into the Levant is discredited by the Dental non metric data from the 2005 study i presented, which shows direct continuity of the Lachish population to earlier Levantine groups and not with Egyptian groups. Just because on an individual basis some fit with Egyptian or Nubians means no more than some fitting with on an individual basis with Englishmen.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2019-07-13 at 05:22.

  10. #9
    Established Member
    Junior Member Arch Hades's Avatar
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 01:31
    Join Date
    2012-02-28
    Posts
    1,820
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Y-DNA
    J2b2*
    mtDNA
    H1
    Race
    Caucasoid
    Metaethnos
    White American
    Ethnicity
    Greco-Mediterranean
    Phenotype
    Pompeii frescoe
    Politics
    I don't do politics
    Religion
    Panentheism
    Germany Japan Italy

    Default

    BTW, just for the record. I do not like dendrograms. The problem with them they kind of hide clinal variability.

    For instance, let's say the Lower Egyptians are closer to the Levant than to the Nubians. So what, that does not mean there's no Egypto-Nubian genetic or phenotypical connection. It just means there is a stronger connection to the Levant. They could be a 60/40 intermediary between Levant and Nubians and in a dendrogram they'll show Egyptians and Levantines on one side, Nubians on the other. This hides clinal genetic and phenotypical variability. That's why I prefer PCA and other plotting methods rather than neighbor joining trees or dendrograms. This is also the case with the Predynastic Upper Egyptians. They'll be closer to Nubians or East African groups like the Tigre, but that doesn't mean they'll be exactly the same as Nubians or East African groups.

    Regarding Brace only using Late Dynastic Lower Egyptians in his 1993 study, yes that's disappointing for sure. But it looks like Lower Egyptians from The First Intermediate Period are quite Near Eastern like.

    Anyway, 'Bass'..you've been destroyed, again. Anyone with a brain can see the massive holes in your logic. "We wuz Ancient Levantines and shit"..yeah right.

    It's going to get really ugly for you guys when we get more genomes sequenced from Ancient Egypt, or Bronze age-historical Israel for that matter, since now it seems you're claiming them largely Black too.
    Last edited by Arch Hades; 2019-07-13 at 05:54.

  11. #10
    Established Member
    Archangel Game Theory's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    5,764
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    E1b1a7a
    mtDNA
    L4b2
    Race
    Sub-Saharan African
    Phenotype
    Sudanid
    Metaethnos
    American
    Ethnicity
    Afro-American
    Phenotype
    New World Black
    Politics
    Center-right
    Religion
    Church of Christ
    United States

    Default

    [QUOTE=Arch Hades;1383023]yet the 2005 study i reference still came to this conclusion.

    "The results of this dental morphology study indicate biological continuity in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age transition in the southern Levant. The similarity between Tell Dothan and Lachish suggests that the two are more closely related to each other than to other sites in the Mediterranean region. There is no dental morphological evidence of major population replacement at either Dothan or Lachish between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. Pooling the time periods from both sites also shows no significant difference. Therefore, these data do not support the model of the “Israelite conquest” or the introduction of a distinct group of immigrants who populated the southern Levant during the Iron Age".


    https://www3.nd.edu/~sheridan/Dothan.pdf[/quote}

    You're repeating yourself again and I've already addressed that dumb shxt you repeat, dental NON-METRIC traits are a separate thing from craniometric moprhology, you don't even understand what dental non-metric traits. I pointed out how Somalis crania-metrically don't cluster with Bantus and West Africans, but on non metric traits they do, one study doesn't "refute" the other.

    So if there is a major Egyptian genetic impact on the Southern Levant we don't see it dentally. If they are Egyptian logic should say they should have the same teeth too, no? But they are showing dental continuity to earlier Levantine populations and not to Egyptian ones.
    That several of the crania missclassified into Nubians, Egyptians and even SSAs supports the arceological and historical evidence that Egypt had a military presence there, there is no getting around it.

    Keita 88 conclusion is simply outdated. Another thing, the thing he did with the Lachish, can easily be done with the Ancient Egyptians themselves.
    How is the study outdated? Prove it.

    "Egypt’s central location between Europe, the Middle East, and Africa likely contributed to its genetic diversity. Numerous studies have analyzed population variation of Ancient Egyptians to establish their origins. Debate about its affinity has historically focused on ancestry and the effects of migration into Egypt from the Nubian corridor, Red Sea littoral, and the eastern Mediterranean. While these regions surely contributed to Egypt’s diversity, few studies have examined how this manifested in a particular location. What might the “local data” indicate about the broader implications of diverse morphometric expression? For this research, 16 cranial measurements were collected from 3D computed tomography models of 25 Egyptian mummies, most of which originated from Akhmim and primarily date to the Ptolemaic Period. Individuals were classified using discriminant function analysis and cluster analysis into the Howells’ Craniometric Data Bank. These results were then situated within our current understanding of Egyptian population affinity. The results suggest a high degree of heterogeneity. Seven individuals classified as Egyptian, while three classified into another African group and nine classified into Asian groups. Using cluster analysis, most individuals grouped within Howells’ Egyptians with the exception of one. The proximity of the Arabian Peninsula to Egypt and the narrowness of the Red Sea likely facilitated the migration of populations from Eastern and Western Asia into Egypt. The high percentage of individuals (36%) that classified into an Asian group rather than the Egyptian, African, or European samples may also suggest a greater influx of groups from the East then previously considered."
    Your lack of reading is funny. That study looked at Egyptians from the Greek period, a period of high foreign immigration. Keita studied the predynastics and Early Dynastics who are closest to the original founders So I don't know what your point was, you don't even read what you post.







    Show me the cranio-facial data of Lower Egyptians ever coming closer to much more Southernly Africans than to Levantines. Keita never shows that as far as I know.
    In Kemp's the book, the same one you cited, he stated that predynastic Lower Egyptian skeletal material had limb ratio/body proportions that were distant from those of Palestine of the same time period, and that was NOT debunked. Since the founders came from the south why are you obsessing over the Lower Egyptian predynastic crania? Very few studies have been done of them because there is very little skeletal material from predynastic Lower Egypt. Why are you asking me? Do your own research and look for the data.

    And I know how to read a dendrogram. Kemp's dendrogram shows most Dynastic Egyptians clustering closer to Ancient Southern Levantines than to most ancient Nubians or the Tigre. So now you're praying Ancient Levantines are Black. I mean you are getting very desperate now, mate.

    Sorry there is no such thing as "Egyptian civilization" without massive West Eurasian genetic influence which has been present in North Africa since the Epipaleolithic. Hell, even the Nubians will have a bunch, the Egyptians will have that much more.
    The archeology and genetics do not show any massive Eurasian genetic influence nor cultural influence. If you want to know the origins of a civilization you study culture and there is NO evidence from culture, nor any skeletal evidence that proves Egyptian civilization arose as a result of Eurasian migrations into the Nile Valley, GTFOH with that nonsense. We're not talking about Morocco here, we are talking about ancient Egypt and I don't give af about what you're prdicting, its about what you can prove and you haven't proven anything except arguing in circles with that same shxt about studies you don't even understand.




    Abydos is Upper Egypt. He has cranio-metric data from early Dynastic Lower Egyptians from Sedment? What did he say of them? Whom did he compare them too? I'm actually curious.
    Sedement is a 9th Dynasty sample...why don't you read the damn studies for yourself? Egyptian civilization started in the south, so again, why the obsession with Lower Egypt now? But here's Sedement






    Of course, cause you know it's an impossible challenge. I didn't straw man you, I gave you a challenge. Keita 88's conclusions are outdated. Perhaps he would come to a different conclusion if he had Dental data available to him from my 2005 study? What happened to your multidisciplinary approach?
    How is his conclusions outdated and how will dental data refute anything? You just don't like his results because you can't easily explain them away, mainly due to your misunderstanding of the data presented. Dental non metric traits, again, are NOT based on measurements, they are scored as PRESENT or NOT PRESENT and can be affect by size, age, and sex. These are little things you fail to realize. A non metric trait can be present in a child, and they not be present as an adult and vice versa. At present it is debateable whether nonmetric traits represent genetic relationships. Here's a paper on it

    https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/view...t=utk_gradthes

    Ohh btw, regarding Dental Non metric traits..they're important.



    The Lachish are simply indigenous Levantines. That was the whole purpose of the study, was to see if they were or not.
    Nobody said the lachish population were Northeast Africans, what was stated was that SOME of the crania that misclassified into the Egypto-Nubians reflect the remnant of a military presence of Egypto-Nubians, you keep missing that damn point. Not even Keita stated Lachish people were NOT Levantines, you're arguing over a strawman.



    Wow, I guess everyone was stationed in the 8th Century BC Southern Levant. Even Englishmen from Poundbury? There's individual overlap with Englishmen too!
    No dumbass:

    The classification of a number of crania into the Romano-British series is noteworthy, and suggests evidence for a Romano-British pres- ence. This is, of course, impossible, since there were no Romano-British during the time of the Judean Kingdom, nor were there any First Dynasty Egyptians, etc. It can be said only at best that these crania morpho- metrically resemble the various other series at the group or individual level. Theoreti- cally only groups, which in reality an un- known series could have affinities or identities with, can or should be used Black- ith and Reyment, 1971). This is clearly not the case here for most series if the Lachish series’ crania are accepted as truly being of the date assigned to the site by archeology. This reality axiom is especially true when the individuals of the Lachish or any other series are evaluated as unknowns and the results are in terms of specific identities. It
    is clear as implied earlier that the idea of similarity must be informed by a larger the- oretical framework.


    You have discredit nothing

    We Wuz Kerma Kangz delusion..........

    Quote Originally Posted by Meygaag View Post
    You @beyoku @HabariTess @Roseai are the ones claiming people that have nothing to do with them.I'm a Cushitic descendant of the Sudan and an heir to all it's civilizations while you descend from Ebola stricken negroes from the Congo forest that eat albinos in order to gain superpowers lmao

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 2017-12-20, 08:47
  2. Arthur Kemp
    By Karl der Große in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2011-05-03, 22:00
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2011-04-08, 07:27
  4. 9/11 Revisited
    By Breedingvariety in forum Current Affairs & Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-04-12, 18:01
  5. Geography of Race Revisited; The Myth of Continents (split) //mod
    By Aware_Dog in forum Physical Anthropology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-01-16, 01:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<