Further studies of crania from ancient Northern Africa: An analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs, using multiple discriminant functions

American J Phys Anthropol

2005

100

Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed to describe and compare up to 36 dental morphological variants in 15 Neolithic through Roman-period Egyptian samples. Trait frequencies are determined, and phenetic affinities are calculated using the mean measure of divergence and Mahalanobis D2 statistics for discrete traits; the most important traits in generating this intersample variation are identified with correspondence analysis. Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity. That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies of nine influential traits, the dental samples appear to be largely homogenous and can be characterized as having morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times.

Section: Intersample Variationcontrasting

confidence: 97%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples

American J Phys Anthropol

2005

100

“…The technique allows the study of differences between two or more groups with respect to a number of intervalor ratio-level variables simultaneously (Klecka, 1975(Klecka, , 1984Lachenbruch, 1975). Discriminant analysis, originally developed by RA Fisher in 1936 to solve problems in taxonomy (Klecka, 19841, has been used successfully in many recent physical anthropological studies (e.g., Crichton, 1966;Keita, 1988Keita, , 1992Haeussler et al, 1989;Collier, 1993).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hypoplastic area method for analyzing dental enamel hypoplasia

Ensor

American J Phys Anthropol

1995

Most analyses of dental enamel hypoplasia compare frequencies of disturbed tooth types, which do not account for variability in the area of affected enamel. An alternate methodology, hypoplastic area, is presented here that accounts for this variability by combining acute and continuous enamel hypoplasia into an interval-level variable. The method compares samples based on individuals, by multiple tooth type variables, or by a single value rather than by tooth types. Use of the hypoplastic area method is illustrated by analyzing human skeletal dentitions in three archaeological samples: Meroitic Nubians from Semna South, Sudan; Anasazi from Navajo Reservoir, New Mexico; and Mogollon from Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona. Both univariate and multivariate statistical tests are employed to assess variation in defects between individuals and samples. By incorporating measurements of continuous defects, the hypoplastic area method provides information beyond that of frequency data in comparing levels of stress. Flexibility of the method is also discussed.

“…Although retaining terms and some methodology equated with racial typology of early physical anthropology (see Keita, 1990Keita, , 1992Keita, , 1996, Mukherjee and associates applied the now-common Mahalanobis D 2 distance to craniometric data for the first time; the result was a measure of group divergence between Jebel Moya and 19 other African samples (Mukherjee et al, 1955). This fresh approach, directed away from typology and towards the concept of population affinity, would not otherwise become a focus of physical anthropologists until the 1970s and beyond (Berry & Berry, 1972Greene, 1972;Howells, 1989;Konigsberg, 1990;Keita, 1990Keita, , 1992Irish, 1993Irish, , 1998aIrish, ,b,c,d, 2005Brace et al, 1993;Johnson & Lovell, 1994;Prowse & Lovell, 1996;Hemphill, 1998;Roseman & Weaver, 2003;Pietrusewsky, 2004;among many others).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The ancient inhabitants of Jebel Moya redux: measures of population affinity based on dental morphology

Intl J of Osteoarchaeology

Konigsberg

2006

This paper reexamines some of the methods and craniometric findings in the classic volumeThe Ancient Inhabitants of Jebel Moya (Sudan) (1955) by Mukherjee, Rao & Trevor, in light of recent archaeological data and relative to a new dental morphological study. Archaeological evidence characterises these inhabitants as having been heavily influenced by outside sources; yet they managed to establish and maintain their own distinctive culture as seen in the site features and surviving artefact collections. The dental study, modelled after the original craniometric-based investigation and using the same or similar comparative samples, detected complementary indications of outside biological influence. In the study, up to 36 dental traits were recorded in a total of 19 African samples. The most influential traits in driving inter-sample variation were then identified, and phenetic affinities were calculated using the Mahalanobis D 2 statistic for non-metric traits. If phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities, like the original craniometric findings, suggest that the Jebel Moyans exhibited a mosaic of features that are reminiscent of, yet distinct from, both sub-Saharan and North African peoples. Together, these different lines of evidence correspond to portray the Jebel Moya populace as a uniform, although distinct, biocultural amalgam.