Biological differentiation at predynastic Naqada Egypt An analysis of dental morphological traits.код для вставкиСкачать
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 93:427433 (1994) Biological Differentiation at Predynastic Naqada, Egypt: An Analysis of Dental Morphological Traits ANDREW L. JOHNSON AND NANCY C. LOWLL Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H4 Canada KEY WORDS inequality Biological distance, Dental anthropology, Social ABSTRACT Cemetery T a t Naqada has been postulated as being the interment site of a predynastic royal or ruling elite due to its small, localized area and the richness of its burial goods. In order to examine possible biological differentiation between the individuals buried in Cemetery T and those buried in other, possibly lower Istatus cemeteries a t Naqada, nonmetric dental morphological data were analyzed using the Mean Measure of Divergence statistic. Results indicate that Cemetery T shows some biological distinction from both Cemetery B and the Great Cemetery. The size of the difference supports the archaeological interpretation that Cemetery T represents a ruling or elite segment (or lineage) of the local population at Naqada, rather than a ruling or elite immigrant population. Given the problem of small samples, however, this interpretation is tentative. o 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc. The ancient Egyptian civilization is well known for its striking remains, such as the pyramids, the burial riches of King Tutankhamun, and the form of writing ltnown as hieroglyphics. Some of the fundamental questions in the study of this civilization, however, concern aspects of its formation, such as its environmental, politicail and ideological associations and antecedents (Bard, 1992; Hassan, 1988; Wenke, 1989, 1991), and the timing and nature of social inequality (Anderson, 1992; Bard, 1988, 1989; Griswold, 1992). Social inequality is clearly evident in the pyramids of Giza, near Cairo, which are monumental tombs for pharaohs of the Old Kingdom (a name attributed to the period of rule by the royal Dynasties 111-VI, c. 2686-2181 B.C.), and in the ornate grave goods found with the mummy of King Tutankhamun, who was buried in a rock cut tomb in the ‘Valley of the Kings” in southern Egypt, the traditional burial place for royalty of the New Kingdom (Dynasties XVIII-XX, c. 15701070 B.C). The origins of the inequalit,y that manifested itself in monumental architecture and opulence in life and death for those 0 1994 WILEY-LISS. INC. of high status are not well established, however. Several investigations into the origins of social inequality in ancient Egypt have focussed on the Upper (southern) Egyptian predynastic site of Naqada or Nagada (Fig. 11, excavated by Petrie in 1894-95. The predynastic era falls before the period characterized by the royal dynasties and is generally agreed to cover the time frame from about 5500 B.C. to 3050 B.C. Petrie mistakenly identified the site as belonging to the Egyptian dynastic period, and, observing the lack of any material goods typical of that period, interpreted the site as representing the immigration of a “New Race” into Upper Egypt (Petrie and Quibell, 1896). This was quickly discounted when the predynastic nature of Naqada was demonstrated (De Morgan, 1896-97). The site has remained ReceivedJanuary 26,1993; accepted November 5,1993. Address reprint requests to Nancy C. Lovell, Department of Anthropology, 13-15 Tory Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H4 Canada. A.L. JOHNSON AND N.C. LOVELL 428 LIBYA Fig. 1. Map of Egypt and Nubia showing the location of the predynastic site of Naqada. significant, however, because, along with nearby Ballas, it served as the basis for Petrie’s pottery Sequence Dating system (Petrie, 1901), becoming the standard typological reference for the Egyptian predynastic era. The site includes three main cemeteries, which are commonly designated “Cemetery B” (after a nearby mound called Kom Belal), “Cemetery T (located near two tumuli), and the “Great New Race” or “Great Cemetery” (the largest). Cemetery T often has been considered an elite cemetery because it was small in size and produced the largest and richest graves. Petrie (Petrie and Quibell, 1896) attributed the burials to the wealthy citizens of Naqada, while other scholars have interpreted the burials as representing a special status group (Davis, 1983), or as royal in nature, perhaps foreshadowing the royal tombs of the early dynastic period (Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Bard, 1992; Case and Payne, 1962; Hoffman, 1979; Kemp, 1973,1991). That Cemetery T may be an elite cemetery raises the possibility that the individuals buried there may be biologically distinct from the general population, since a ruling elite may consist of a family lineage or may have come from outside the local population. Naqada’s contribution to studies of population affinity has been restricted so far to data obtained from bones. The Naqada skeletal material originally was sent by Petrie to Karl Pearson at University College, London, for use by Pearson’s biometric school, which quickly produced a correlation of skull length and breadth (Pearson, 1895), followed by measurements of the chief bones of the skeleton (Warren, 1897). One of the research objectives of the biometric school was the metric definition of different human races, and the Naqada crania were examined in order to determine whether the ancient Egyptians resembled the Negro in cranial characteristics (Fawcett and Lee, 1902; Morant, 1925). Early in its development, BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION AT NAQADA 429 cranial nonmetric traits analysis al,;G O was years, the sex of each specimen was conapplied to the Naqada series and to the firmed at the time of this study, following question of racial admixture in Egyptian contemporary osteological procedures (Bass, history (Berry and Berry, 1972; Berry et al., 1987; Ubelaker, 1989; White, 1991). Fifty 1967).Now part of the Duckworth Collection females, 72 males, and 9 individuals of unat Cambridge University, the materi.‘11 con- known sex comprise the total sample; the tinues to be the subject of craniometric in- sex distribution is the same in all three cemvestigation into the biological affinities of etery subsamples. the ancient Egyptians (Crichton, 1966; Forty-three morphological traits of the Keita, 1990,1992). permanent dentition were scored by Love11 Biological affinity studies also can be in accordance with the criteria and scoring based profitably on dental morphological plaques established by Turner et al. (1991). traits, which are well suited to biological dis- The data collection took place over a period tance analyses because: (1)many traits are of one month. Intraobserver variation was independent of each other as well as inde- assessed by repeated scoring of 25 toothpendent of age and sex; (2) there is a high trait combinations in a randomly selected genetic component in occurrence and ex- subsample of 20 individuals and was found pression; and ( 3 ) the amount of intergroup to be well within the limits recommended by variation in trait frequencies is high (Irish Nichol and Turner (1986). All available and Turner, 1990). Teeth also are often bet- teeth were scored individually, but only the ter preserved than are bones and are rarely antimere showing the highest degree of trait altered significantly by postmortem diagen- expression was used in the analysis, accordesis, so data can be obtained from fragmen- ing to the individual count method (Turner tary remains that are unsuitable for cranial and Scott, 1977). Unfortunately, the scores metric and nonmetric study. Nonnnetric for many of the 43 morphological traits could traits of the dentition in skeletal samples not be included in subsequent statistical from ancient Nubia, to the south of Egypt, analysis due to small samples of observable have been examined in several studies of teeth within the cranial samples for each population affinity (Greene, 1967, 1972, cemetery; premortem tooth loss due to peri1982; Irish and Turner, 1990; Turner and odontal disease or infectious abscessing, seMarkowitz, 1990). The purpose of this study vere tooth wear, and postmortem tooth loss was to examine nonmetrical morphological and breakage are the causes of the small traits of the teeth t o address the question of samples of teeth. Although some workers inwhether any degree of biological differentia- clude a trait in an intersample comparison if tion can be detected among the skeletal Sam- it is observed in only one of the samples beples obtained from Cemeteries B, T, and the ing considered (i.e., it is absent in the other Great Cemetery at Naqada. samples), this procedure can magnify the influence of chance occurrences of rare traits MATERIALS AND METHODS in small samples, such as those available in Skeletal samples were examined at the this study. Therefore, only traits that were Department of Biological Anthropology a t observed in at least two of the three samples Cambridge University: 38 skulls from Cem- were included in the analysis. Any toothetery B, 26 skulls from Cemetery T, and 67 trait combination that was wholly unobservskulls from the Great Cemetery. Sex alf the able in any of the cemetery samples was necindividuals was determined at the tirne of essarily ignored. Accordingly, the final data excavation by Warren (18971, who assisted set was reduced to 11 morphological traits, Petrie in the field. Later, sex was reassessed scored as 24 tooth-trait combinations (see when the specimens were accessioned by the Table 1). Since anterior teeth, i.e., the inciDuckworth Laboratory at Cambridge Uni- sors and canines, are most easily lost or broversity. Since postcrania are available for ken in the burial environment, it is not surmany of the Naqada specimens, these deter- prising that these 11traits all are found on minations of sex were largely accurate, but the posterior molar and premolar teeth. To because methods have improved over the avoid eliminating traits which have con- A.L. JOHNSON AND N.C. LOVELL 430 TABLE 1 . Frequencies' of nonmetric dental traits for the Naaada cemeteries Traits ~. Protostylid LM3 Protostylid LM2 Protostylid LM1 c u s p 5 UM3 cusp 5 uM2 cusp 5 u M 1 Carabelli UM3 Carabelli UM2 Carabelli UM1 Absence UM3 Absence LM3 Root no. UPMl Cusp no. LM3 Cusp no. LM2 Cusp no. LM1 Root no. UM3 Accessory Cusp UPM2 Accessory Cusp UPMl Hypocone UM3 Hypocone UM2 Hypocone UM1 YGroove LM2 Metacone UM1 Metacone uM2 .- Cemetery B _ _ 217 6/16 3/12 319 4/18 1/13 1/10 3116 2111 0122 2/20 9114 116 0115 619 8/10 118 117 516 15/15 3/14 6114 7/16 16/19 Great Cemetery ~ - Cemetery T~ 10128 17/32 11/24 21/35 6/38 8/33 7/31 10136 6/29 2/49 4/46 24/29 14/26 4131 17/25 6/18 6/16 2/13 23/32 32/37 4137 9/26 25/37 33/44 Total -~ 013 417 114 117 5/14 119 115 1111 3/10 3/17 2/13 8115 213 217 45 12/38 27/55 15/40 25/51 15/70 10155 9/46 14/63 11/50 5/88 8/89 41/58 17/35 6/53 27/39 16/36 7/29 3/23 32/42 57/66 7/62 15/47 35/64 60177 218 015 013 414 10114 0111 017 3111 11/14 'Frequencies are given as the number ofexpressions of the trait over the number of observable teeth stant frequencies (i.e., are expressed to some degree) in all groups being compared, those traits were dichotomized by scoring only full expressions of the trait as present. Thus, any expression of a trait was scored as presence of the trait except for the following (scores refer to the definitions and descriptions of Turner et al., 1991): Cusp no. (all) presence = a score of 5 or greater; Root no. (UPM1) presence = a score of 2 or greater; Root no. (UM3) presence = a score of 3 or greater; Hypocone (UM3 and UM2) presence = a score of 3 or greater; Hypocone (UMl) presence = a score of 3 or greater; Hypocone (UMl) presence = a score of 5; Metacone (all) presence = a score of 5. Table 1 lists the traits analyzed, sample frequencies for each cemetery and total sample frequencies. Chi-squared statistics were calculated to evaluate sex differences in trait frequencies, and since none of the traits were found to have any significant degree of heterogeneity, the sexes were pooled for further analysis. Since the expressions of traits are believed to be correlated among teeth in a given tooth class, we have chosen to perform distance calculations on a subset of nine traits which are considered to be genetically independent of each other: Protostylid LM2, Cusp 5 UM2, Carabelli UM2, Absence UM3, Root no. UPM1, Cusp no. LM1, Hypocone UM2, and YGroove LM2. For traits whose presence is thought to be correlated across the three molars, the second molar was chosen as the defining tooth since this resulted in the largest sample sizes. Traits were arscine transformed using the Freeman and Tukey transformation recommended by Green and Suchey (1976) for small sample sizes: + -21 sin-' (1 - 2 [-I) k + l n + l where k = the observed frequency of the trait, and n = the number of individuals observable for the trait. Comparisons were made among the three samples using the multivariate Mean Measure of Divergence (MMD) statistic (Berry and Berry, 1972; Green and Suchey, 1976; Sjsvold, 1973),and the variance and standard deviations were calculated according to the mathematical method of Sjsvold (1973): BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION AT NAQADA TABLE 2. Between cemetery distances using nine independent traits MMD' SD Standardized MMD Approx. p-values 'MMO = B-Great Cemeteries B-T T-Great 0.0101 0.0464 0.2186 0.335 0.2415 0.0836 2.8890 0.0206 0.1065 0.0665 1.6006 0.068 mean measure of divergence;SD = standard deviation. 431 TABLE 3. Cemetery to pooled cemetery distances using nine independent traits Cemetery BiGreat and T) TiGreat and B) MMD' SD Standardized MMD Approx. p-values 'MMD = 0.0370 0.0431 0.8584 0.178 0.1388 0.0621 2.2350 0.0375 mean measure of divergence;SD = standard deviation. that each cemetery represents a random sample from a single parent population, best estimated from the pooled trait frequencies. In addition, comparisons between each of the two smaller cemeteries and a pooled sample of the remaining cemeteries have 1 1 been calculated and are shown in Table 3. The results presented in Table 2 indicate n,, + -nli + that the Great Cemetery and Cemetery B 2 are not statistically distinguishable from each other. The two isolated cemeteries, B SDmD = dVarMMD and T, are quite distinct ( p = 0.026) and where 8,= the angular transformation of Cemetery T and the Great Cemetery are the sample for the ith trait; nl,, nZ1= the very nearly significant in their differentianumber of individuals observed for the ith tion ( p = 0.068). The comparisons of each of trait for sample 1 and 2, respectively; and the isolated cemeteries to a pooled sample of the other two (Table 3) are very much in line r = the number of traits. Standardized distances were calciulated with the pairwise comparisons and suggest by dividing the raw MMD score by it6 stan- that Cemetery T represents a significant dedard deviation, as those are most appropri- parture from the other two cemeteries. ate for evaluating and comparing relative These results favor rejecting the null hydistances among samples of different, sizes pothesis that all three cemeteries represent (Sofaer et al., 1986). Sjevold (1973) sug- random samples from a single parent popugested that a standardized MMD greater lation, and further, indicate that the rejecthan 2.0 denotes a significant differeince at tion of the null hypothesis is largely due to the differentiation of Cemetery T from the the alpha = .05 level. other two cemeteries. RESULTS DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Table 2 gives the raw distances, their This analysis indicates that the sample of standard deviations, and the corresponding standardized distances for each pairwise individuals interred in Cemetery T can be comparison of cemeteries using the subset of differentiated from those interred in Cemenine traits. Simulation experiments by one tery B and the Great Cemetery on the basis of the authors (Johnson, in prep.) have of dental morphology. Therefore, the suggesshown that the standardized MMD can be- tion that Cemetery T represented an elite or come quite conservative under small sample even royal burial ground is supported over sizes. Therefore, approximate p-values (pre- the argument that it merely represents a sented also in Table 2) have been obtained special status group of some kind. Cemetery by simulation for the distances calculated B, on the other hand, is much closer to here. These comparisons were simulated the Great Cemetery in affinity than it is to under the sampling conditions reflected in Cemetery T. Thus, Cemetery B may still this study and under the null hypothesis represent, as Davis (1983) suggested, a sta- 432 A.L. JOHNSON AND N.C. LOVELL tus-differentiated group which is not biologically distinct from the population using the Great Cemetery. One possible explanation of the biological distinction among the cemeteries is that it represents temporal variation. Hoffman (1979) suggested that Cemetery T was constructed and used in the Late Gerzean (Naqada 111) period (c. 3200-3050 B.C.), while Davis (1983)concluded that Cemetery T was used contemporaneously with the Great Cemetery throughout the entire Gerzean period (c. 4000-3050 B.C.) rather than just the late Gerzean period. The possibility exists, therefore, that the distinctions found among Cemetery T, Cemetery B and the Great Cemetery are the result of microevolutionary changes over time, rather than a contemporaneous distinction of an elite group from the general population. The magnitudes of the raw MMD distances, however, are incompatible with this interpretation given the time period in question. According to Turner’s (1986) proposed rate of dental microevolution, these distances would represent up to 13,000years of microevolution if indeed the occupants of Cemetery T were temporally distinct from the population that is now represented in the other two cemeteries. Alternatively, Cemetery T may represent a different, i.e., immigrant population, although this would have taken place several generations earlier in order for cultural assimilation to be complete, i.e., for the grave goods to be so unquestionably similar in style, if not richness, among the cemeteries. Although population movements along the Nile undoubtedly occurred, we suspect that in the predynastic period these were more individual, family, or other small unit phenomena, rather than the transplantation of large groups. Given the archaeological and biological evidence, we believe that the most likely and most parsimonious explanation for the magnitude of the distances between Cemetery T and the other cemeteries is that of inbreeding within a segment of a population. Ruling or elite classes or lineages often have preferential, within group, marriage rules. Thus, genetic drift could account for the greater than expected distance between this group and the general population. Al- though the data lead us to conclude that Cemetery T represents a ruling or elite segment or lineage of the local population at Naqada, rather than an elite immigrant population, the problem of small samples tempers the reliability of this interpretation and necessitates caution until further evidence is forthcoming. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The data upon which this article is based were collected at the Department of Biological Anthropology, Cambridge University. We thank Dr. Robert Foley and staff of the department for their kindness and cooperation, and Dr. George Mann for his improvements to our working conditions. We thank Marnie Bartell for assisting with the data collection and entry, and Robert Wenke for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. Two anonymous reviewers provided very helpful suggestions for the improvement of the paper. This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada research grant to Nancy Lovell. LITERATURE CITED Anderson W (1992) Badarian burials: Evidence of social inequality in Middle Egypt during the early predynastic era. J. Amer. Res. Cent. Egypt 29:5146. Arkell AJ, and Ucko PJ (1965) Review of predynastic development in the Nile Valley. Curr. Anthropol. 6:145-166. Bard K (1988)A quantitative analysis of the predynastic burials in Armant cemetery 1400-1500. J. Egyptian Archaeol. 74:39-55. Bard K (1989)The evolution of social complexity in predynastic Egypt: An analysis of the Naqada cemeteries. J. Med. Archaeol. 2t223-248. Bard K (1992) Toward a n interpretation of the role of ideology in the evolution of complex society in Egypt. J . Anthropol. Archaeol. 11:l-24. Bass WM (1987) Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. Third edition. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society. Berry AC, and Berry RJ (1972) Origins and relationships of the ancient Egyptians. Based on a study of non-metric variations in the skull. J . Human Evol. 1 :199-208. Berry AC, Berry FLJ, and Ucko PJ (1967) Genetical change in ancient Egypt. Man2:551-557. Case H, and Payne J C (1962) Tomb 100: The decorated tomb at Hierakonpolis. J. Egyptian Archaeol. 48:518. Crichton JM (1966) A multiple discriminant analysis of Egyptian and African Negro crania. Papers of the Pea- BIOLOGICAL DIFFEREbTTIATION AT NAQADA body Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University 57r47-67. Davis W (1983) Cemetery T at Naqada. Mitteilungen Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 39t17-28. De Morgan J (1896-97) Recherches sur les Origines de L'Egypte. 2 VOIS.Paris: Leroux. Fawcett CD, and Lee A (1902) A second study of the variation and correlation of the human skull, with special reference to the Naqada crania. Biometrika 1:40%467. Green RF, and Suchey J M (1976)The use of inverse sine transformations in the analysis of non-metric data. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 45331-68. Greene DL (1967) Dentition of Meroitic, X-Group and Christian Populations from Wadi Halfa, Sudan. University of Utah Anthropology Papers (Nubian Series No. 1). Salt Lake City: University of Utah. Greene DL (1972) Dental anthropology of early Egypt and Nubia. J . Human Evol. 1:315-324. Greene DL (1982)Discrete dental variations and biological distances of Nubian populations. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 58t75-79. Griswold WA (1992) Measuring social inequality at Armant. In R Friedman and B Adams (eds.):The Followers of Horus. Egyptian Studies Association Publication No. 2, Oxbow Monographs 20. Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 193-198. Hassan FA (1988) The Predynastic of Egypt. J. World Prehistory 2:135-185. Hoffman MA (1979) Egypt Before the Pharaohs. New York: Dorset Press. Irish JD, and Turner CG I1 (1990) West African dental affinity of late Pleistocene Nubians: Peopling of the Eurafrican-South Asian triangle 11. Homo 41:42-53. Johnson AL (In prep) Small sample sizes and the MMD statistic: A Monte Carlo simulation. Keita SOY (1990) Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 83:3548. Keita SOY (1992) Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: An analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs, using multiple discriminant functions. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 87:245-254. Kemp BJ (1973) Photographs of the decorated tomb at Hierakonpolis. J . Egypt. Archaeol. 59t36-43. Kemp B J (1991) Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization. London: Routledge. Morant GM (1925) A study of Egyptian craniology from prehistoric to Roman times. Biometrika 17:l-53. 433 Nichol CR, and Turner CG I1 (1986) Intra- and interobserver concordance in classifying dental morphology. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 69.299315. Pearson K (1985) Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Phil. Trans. 187(A):279-281. Petrie WMF (1901) Diospolis Parva: The Cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu. London: Egypt Exploration Fund Publication No. 20. Petrie WMF, and Quibell J E (1896) Naqada and Ballas 1895. London: Bernard Quaritch. Sjevold T (1973) The occurrence of minor non-metrical variants in the skeleton and their quantitative treatment for population comparison. Homo 24~204-233. Sofaer JA, Smith P, and Kaye E (1986) Affinities between contemporary and skeletal Jewish and nonJewish groups based on tooth morphology. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 7Ot265-275. Turner CG I1 (1986) Dentochronological separation estimates for Pacific Rim populations. Science 232:11401142. Turner CG 11, and Markowitz MA (1990)Dental discontinuity between Late Pleistocene and recent Nubians: Peopling of the Eurafrican-Asian triangle I. Homo 41: 32-41. Turner CG 11, and Scott RG (1977) Dentition of Easter Islanders. In AA Dahlberg and TA Graber (eds.): Orofacial Growth and Development. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 229-249. Turner CG 11, Nichol CR, and Scott RG (1991) Scoring procedures for key morphological traits of the permanent dentition: The Arizona State University dental anthropology system. In MA Kelley and CS Larson (eds.): Advances in Dental Anthropology. New York: Wiley-Liss, pp. 13-31. Ubelaker DH (1989) Human Skeletal Remains: Excavation, analysis, interpretation. Second Edition. Washington: Taraxacum. Warren E (1897) An investigation on the variability of the human skeleton with special reference to the Naqada race. Phil. Trans. Royal SOC.189:135-227. Wenke R J (1989) Egypt: Origins of complex society. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. IBr129-155. Wenke RJ (1991) The evolution of early Egyptian civilization: Issues and evidence. J. World Prehistory 5t279-329. White TD (1991) Human Osteology. San Diego: Academic Press.