Notice how close the Lebu and Serer griots cluster with East African Somalis, Beja and Oromo.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ) The results obtained here support previous craniometric (Froment, 1998) and genetic (Biondi et al., 1996) studies in showing a marked morphological differentia- tion between broad African regions, although there are many cranial features in common between all regions Dioronboumak specimens in particular are extremely variable in relation to size (even when considering only male specimens). According to the chronology of the site, this fact could indicate the presence of several phases of occupation by different populations over a period ofat least 5 centuries, despite cultural continuity (Descamps & Thilmans, 1997). 2) Preliminary results about the relationship between Senegalese Iron Age specimens and a few African ethnic groups suggest a morphological similarity with the Ashanti. However. this observation needs further investigation. In conclusion, geographical differences in skull morphology could reflect predominant directions of gene flow within each African region, and in West Africa they are observable up to the Iron Age. A stronger biological impact of populations from sub- Saharan Africa than from North Africa is also observed in the morphological diversifircation of the Senegalese since Iron Age up to present times.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asante sana Chollie, this is the kind of stuff that attracted me to ES AE&E over five years ago.
What immediately struck me, and sent me off looking up more, was the inclusion of a Hassi el~Abiod specimen in that scatterplot.
That fossil is deemed "mechtoid" and, check it, it tightly clusters craniometrically with modern Diola. Just what are the overlooked unstated implications?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charlie, can you post more info from the study, the methodology used, to be specific. I can't access the pdf for some reason.
Did they only study the three cranial markers mentioned in the plot or what?
The positioning of their samples looks like they did exactly that. Despite their varied samples, the whole thing gives off the false impression that all Africans look the same.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Charlie, can you post more info from the study, the methodology used, to be specific. I can't access the pdf for some reason.
Did they only study the three cranial markers mentioned in the plot or what?
The positioning of their samples looks like they did exactly that. Despite their varied samples, the whole thing gives off the false impression that all Africans look the same.
Not so, when you look at the scatter plot there's a lot of variability to be seen which is consistent with a number of studies and invalidates the concept of so called "true Negroes."
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unlike many PC graphs, that've left me wondering what the components were, the one presented here not only lists the variables of its factors but also gives their %.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Notice how close the Lebu and Serer griots cluster with East African Somalis, Beja and Oromo.
As I see it, the griots don't form a cluster at all. In fact one Serer point (-2.3,-0.4) presents itself as an outlier to any of the confidence ellipses and unlike the other griot outlier (-0.8,2.2), which happens to be Lebu, has no other points near enough to even cluster with.
It's true though that eight of the widely scattered 23 griot samples fall in cluster with the six BEJ/S samples.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: ... when you look at the scatter plot there's a lot of variability to be seen which is consistent with a number of studies and invalidates the concept of so called "true Negroes."
Overall there is ingroup variation in those of large enough sampling and this is why outgroups overlap. Not even within group can it be said this scatterplot gives evidences of low variability.
Even with the small sample size of the Diola where two form a tight cluster with the one Hassi el~Abiod the other two Diola points are far from them and each other as well.
Some other Ribot reports:
RIBOT (I.) 2002, Craniomandibular variation in sub-Saharan Africa: sexual dimorphism, geography, ecology and history, Thèse de Doctorat, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
RIBOT (I.) 2003, Craniometrical analysis of Central and East Africans in relation to history: a case study based on unique collections of known ethnic affiliation, Anthropologica et Praehistorica 114: 25-50
RIBOT (I.) 2004, Differentiation of modern sub-Saharan African populations: craniometric interpretations in relation to geography and history Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 16 (3-4)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To illustrate that the plot in the OP was indeed showing low variation between groups, compare how the elipses of Bantu speakers (green) and Khoisan (purple) are more or less superimposed, just like the scattered plot in the OP, when relationships are constructed in factor analysis (1), instead of multivariate analysis (2):
posted
1) Is Grines(2007) Fig.4 then showing low between group variance of sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia whose ellipses much more closely overlap than the sub-Saharan and South African Khoe-San ellipses do?
2) Since said confidence ellipses are based on recent human samples does that imply Malians, Kenyans, Austrians, Greeks, Italians, Germans, Syrians, and Sinai all look the same?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
showing a marked morphological differentiation between broad African regions, although there are many cranial features in common between all regions - Ribot et al.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:1) Is Grines(2007) Fig.4 then showing low between group variance of sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia whose ellipses much more closely overlap than the sub-Saharan and South African Khoe-San ellipses do?
This relationship is caused by the landmarks under study, not necessarily by overall similarity. In this case, they used five.
quote:2) Since said confidence ellipses are based on recent human samples does that imply Malians, Kenyans, Austrians, Greeks, Italians, Germans, Syrians, and Sinai all look the same?
Nope What it means is that they look similar in the appearance of the cranial landmarks under study:
We sought to further assess the relationship between the Hofmeyr cranium and samples of various recent sub-Saharan Africans (n = 263) and Europeans (n = 24) and a small sample of UP Eurasians (n = 5), using eight linear dimensions of the face and cranial vault (table S7). The recent sub-Saharan African samples consisted of several Bantu-speaking groups that were combined because no significant differentiation among them was observed through analyses of variance.
The plot was presented in the OP as depicting absolute and definite relationships, and in that context, without access to the accompanying information, the plot seemed off in terms of inter populational variation. Which was why I questioned what methodology/variables were used to construct the plot.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how in Ribot's case overlapping would imply "all Africans look the same" but in Grine's case the nearly 1:1 overlap of WestEurasians and Africans merely "look similar in the appearance of the cranial landmarks under study."
Semantics. What's applicable to Grine is true of Ribot. Their only difference is their choice of measurements (each's choice of CFA variables in bold);
Both Grine's and Ribot's common factor plots use a total of five variables. Contrary to the notion "the plot in the OP was indeed showing low variation between groups, ... elipses ... are more or less superimposed, ... when relationships are constructed in factor analysis, instead of multivariate analysis"
common factor analysis is a type of multivariate analysis that brings out set relationships unshown by the variables used as the CFA plot's factors.
If Ribot's CFA is said to give a false impression that all its subjects look the same and its ellipses show low between group variability then the same would be true of Grine's.
Grine is quoted as using eight landmarks. Ribot uses fourteen. Whatever explanation used to justify Grine is just as appropriate for Ribot.
Neither Grine nor Ribot present anything implying their subjects look the same and both of their studies are concerned with differentiation.
The pronouncement against Ribot was premature and unjustified as any examination of the plot in the opening post shows the points for small sample size (N < 7) subjects are widely spread and the ellipses of confidence for larger sample size subjects are big not little, neither indicate low variability.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: preliminary multivariate analyses (PCA) showed that in Senegal, there is a high inter- and intra-regional diversity,
quote:Preliminary multivariate analyses (PCA) showed that there is a marked geographical differentiation between the major geographical areas, namely West, East, Central and South Africa (Ribot & Lahr, in press).
quote:One-way analyses of variance show that modern populations from all broad regions differ in most metrical dimensions
quote:
I) On a broad geographical level (figures 2 & 3),</font>
there is an overlapping variation of Senegalese Iron Age specimens with West African modem populations (eg. large nose, orbit and mandible; tall face);
there are marked geographical differences between all main regions, especially between North Africa and all sub-Saharan Africa and within the latter:
the sample of Dioronboumak is particularly variable, especially in relation to size of vault.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">
II) In terms of variation between groups of known ethnic origin (figures 4&5),</font>
there are marked facial differences between three ethnic groups: Basuku (eg. low face, small orbits), Teita and Bahutu (eg. tall face, large orbits) and N'Komi (eg. large tall face, large orbits);
there is an overlapping variation of Senegalese Iron Age specimens (especially Dioronboumak) with a large number of groups, such as the "griots" Lebu, the Nokara sample, the Teita, the Bahutu and particularly the Ashanti (eg. large nose and face);
the "griots" Serer and the Basuku are comparatively small in relation to the "griots" Lebu.
quote:we can provide preliminary answers to our two questions:
I ) The results obtained here support previous craniometric (Froment, 1998) and genetic (Biondi et al., 1996) studies in showing a marked morphological differentiation between broad African regions, although there are many cranial features in common between all regions Dioronboumak specimens in particular are extremely variable in relation to size (even when considering only male specimens). According to the chronology of the site, this fact could indicate the presence of several phases of occupation by different populations over a period of at least 5 centuries, despite cultural continuity (Descamps & Thilmans, 1997).
2) Preliminary results about the relationship between Senegalese Iron Age specimens and a few African ethnic groups suggest a morphological similarity with the Ashanti. However. this observation needs further investigation.
In conclusion, geographical differences in skull morphology could reflect predominant directions of gene flow within each African region, and in West Africa they are observable up to the Iron Age. A stronger biological impact of populations from sub- Saharan Africa than from North Africa is also observed in the morphological diversifircation of the Senegalese since Iron Age up to present times.
What's true of this whole report was observed earlier about its fig.4 CFA, "... there's a lot of variability to be seen which is consistent with a number of studies and invalidates the concept of so called 'true Negroes.' "
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Interesting how in Ribot's case overlapping would imply "all Africans look the same" but in Grine's case the nearly 1:1 overlap of WestEurasians and Africans merely "look similar in the appearance of the cranial landmarks under study."
What is even more interesting is that you apparently have a hard time comprehending what went down, even after I explained it to you.
In my previous post I said that the low interpopulation discreteness of their well represented African sample was said in a certain context, ie, a context wherein I had to work with both limited access to the study, and not so accurate worded conclusions drawn by both you and Charlie. Yes you, giving the impression that you had read the study and fully understood it, contributed to me wondering about the plot.
That's what I find interesting: you coming back and correcting people after you first misread the study yourself, judging by your initial interpretation of global cranial relationships in OP fig4, and you mentioning Albiod previous status in light of this new information, as if to question it based on something as trivial as a Diola specimen comparing favorably to Albiod in terms of face, vault and orbit size:
quote:That fossil is deemed "mechtoid" and, check it, it tightly clusters craniometrically with modern Diola.
I took the time to explain myself in the lower part of my previous post, sensing the underlying intentions of your Queries. Yet you ignored my recent explanation in favor of an earlier post so u can make sensation where there is none:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: The plot was presented in the OP as depicting absolute and definite relationships, and in that context, without access to the accompanying information, the plot seemed off in terms of inter populational variation. Which was why I questioned what methodology/variables were used to construct the plot
And yes, I still maintain that the plot in the opening post shows low inter populational variation, which is the case because of reasons already stated, and suspected by me since my very first post, namely, that that the variables under study in that particular plot were limited.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: If Ribot's CFA is said to give a false impression that all its subjects look the same and its ellipses show low between group variability then the same would be true of Grine's.
It IS also true for Grine's populational relationships. This is of course the exact reason why I posted Grine's plots. This totally flew past your head in your quest to sensationalize and focus on Grine's positioning of Eurasians near Africans, which had nothing to do with my intentions for posting the two plots. I posted it to show that, just like in the case of Ribot, both factor plots work with relationships constructed based on five variables, and that the entities differentiate more when more variables are included.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Quotes from Ribot on African variability
quote: preliminary multivariate analyses (PCA) showed that in Senegal, there is a high inter- and intra-regional diversity,
quote:Preliminary multivariate analyses (PCA) showed that there is a marked geographical differentiation between the major geographical areas, namely West, East, Central and South Africa (Ribot & Lahr, in press).
quote:One-way analyses of variance show that modern populations from all broad regions differ in most metrical dimensions
quote:
I) On a broad geographical level (figures 2 & 3),</font></font></font></font>
there is an overlapping variation of Senegalese Iron Age specimens with West African modem populations (eg. large nose, orbit and mandible; tall face);
there are marked geographical differences between all main regions, especially between North Africa and all sub-Saharan Africa and within the latter:
the sample of Dioronboumak is particularly variable, especially in relation to size of vault.
II) In terms of variation between groups of known ethnic origin (figures 4&5),</font></font></font></font>
there are marked facial differences between three ethnic groups: Basuku (eg. low face, small orbits), Teita and Bahutu (eg. tall face, large orbits) and N'Komi (eg. large tall face, large orbits);
there is an overlapping variation of Senegalese Iron Age specimens (especially Dioronboumak) with a large number of groups, such as the "griots" Lebu, the Nokara sample, the Teita, the Bahutu and particularly the Ashanti (eg. large nose and face);
the "griots" Serer and the Basuku are comparatively small in relation to the "griots" Lebu.
quote:we can provide preliminary answers to our two questions:
I ) The results obtained here support previous craniometric (Froment, 1998) and genetic (Biondi et al., 1996) studies in showing a marked morphological differentiation between broad African regions, although there are many cranial features in common between all regions Dioronboumak specimens in particular are extremely variable in relation to size (even when considering only male specimens). According to the chronology of the site, this fact could indicate the presence of several phases of occupation by different populations over a period of at least 5 centuries, despite cultural continuity (Descamps & Thilmans, 1997).
2) Preliminary results about the relationship between Senegalese Iron Age specimens and a few African ethnic groups suggest a morphological similarity with the Ashanti. However. this observation needs further investigation.
In conclusion, geographical differences in skull morphology could reflect predominant directions of gene flow within each African region, and in West Africa they are observable up to the Iron Age. A stronger biological impact of populations from sub- Saharan Africa than from North Africa is also observed in the morphological diversifircation of the Senegalese since Iron Age up to present times.
Even though you attempt to present them as such, very few, if any of these portions pertain to fig4, let alone my initial remarks of fig4, ie, inter populational variation, instead of intra populational. For instance, the author mentions preliminary observations, what does this have to do with fig4? Elsewhere, the author mentions nose size, this also has nothing to do with fig4. A portion also mentions North Africa, well, their ''North Africa'' is not presented in ellipse form in fig4.
Makes me wonder about your grasp of this study.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know exactly what went down and presented my view without resource to ad hominem about any presenter's level of comprehension. As usual now starts the diversion into personality rather than objective focus on the given statements.
Disagreement in interpretation is the norm in analyzing anthropological data and says nothing about anyone's comprehension. I don't see professional academicians resorting to questioning each others comprehension abilities when they disagree in interpretation and it's an unneccessary smoke screen here as well.
Until my post of 17 January, 2011 06:46 PM EST my observations and commentary were soley based on the CFA in the opening post excepting your post of two uncited plots necessitating my uncovering of their source in order to intelligently comment on them. CFA and CCA plots are quite different entities and the latter is not designed to elucidate the former.
In the OP CFA plot, no global cranial relationships are presented. However a careful examination does reveal Hassi el~Abiod in its legend under Late Stone Age-Iron Age specimens. Hassi el~Abiod had been examined previously by the Explorer. Further research showed it is labeled mechtoid. It's coordinates in Ribot CFA Fig.4 (1.1,1.4) right next to two of the four Diola specimens is easily ascertainable and led to my, as yet unexplored accurately worded, question about implications re mechtoid-Diola looks versus the standard view of mechtoids not resembling any "black Africans." Such questioning is standard and leads to further discovery and paradigms.
Your observations are duly noted and commented on earlier without personal reference to yourself or your motives. I lack the ESP needed to ascertain motives. Likewise I doubt you have any ability to discern anything about what motivates me nor does my presentation display any projected sensationalism.
I stand by what I wrote, have no need to further revisit it, and await opportunities to rationally and non-combatively discuss the subject header topic with other forum members.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: What is even more interesting is that you apparently have a hard time comprehending what went down, even after I explained it to you.
In my previous post I said that the low interpopulation discreteness of their well represented African sample was said in a certain context, ie, a context wherein I had to work with both limited access to the study, and not so accurate worded conclusions drawn by both you and Charlie. Yes you, giving the impression that you had read the study and fully understood it, contributed to me wondering about the plot.
That's what I find interesting: you coming back and correcting people after you first misread the study yourself, judging by your initial interpretation of global cranial relationships in OP fig4, and you mentioning Albiod previous status in light of this new information, as if to question it based on something as trivial as a Diola specimen comparing favorably to Albiod in terms of face, vault and orbit size:
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something that stands out about this study is the so-called "North African" sample. From what has come to attention, the only "North African" sample specified comes from Sudan -- the Attiri series. And it only consists of two specimens at that. I haven't come across any description of the constituents and the geographical sources of the "recent North African" samples, except for an almost meaningless reference to the sample size of 80.
Look at this map from the Ribot et al. study; just look at the pieces that the continent is sliced into, as representing west, east, central, north and south. Nothing objective about it at all. It has got to be purely political; no other explanation can be logical...
Another interesting element, is the plot of figure 2. It strikes me that sections of the pygmy series and the central African series, along with that of the recent "North African" bunch, fell along more extreme scales for "narrower noses" indicator than the eastern African group.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As usual now starts the diversion into personality rather than objective focus on the given statements.
This emotional statement makes absolutely no sense. You know it doesn’t, because you've abandoned your misguided attempt to show double standards on my part in interpreting Ribot vs Rrine, in favor of emotionalism. What made you do this, if not the objective facts I stated in my previous posts, showing you have no leg to stand on? Everything I said, including my statements about you not comprehending certain sections of the study, which is evident, was objective. Talking about objectivity and serious scholarship, pray tell, why did you give me that irrelevant crap about Eurasians clustering near Africans when I attempted to demonstrate that Factor analysis was the culprit of a lack of ellipse differentiation in Ribot fig4, using Grine?
quote:Disagreement in interpretation is the norm in analyzing anthropological data and says nothing about anyone's comprehension.
There is also no disagreement in interpretation; there is a disagreement on facts. For example, barring your attempt to force Ribot’s ascriptions of variation, which were preliminary and thus, drawn from material other than fig4, on fig4, where is your evidence that Ribot interpreted fig4 as particularly evident of inter populational variation? Where is your own demonstration, using common sense and reason, that that fig4 shows high inter population diversity? You realize that you have talked about everything but Ribot fig4, and how it demonstrates inter populational variation?
quote:I don't see professional academicians resorting to questioning each others comprehension abilities when they disagree in interpretation and it's an unneccessary smoke screen here as well.
It feels to you like an unnecessary smoke screen, because you’re at the receiving end of me correcting you. You didn’t think it was inappropriate to butt into something that wasn’t even directed at you. Neither did you think it was smoke screenish to invoke talks about me semantisizing issues and responding prematurely. Go to ESR if you want to bathe and immerse yourself in sugar coded replies. You didn’t comprehend what Ribot’s ascriptions pertained to, which would otherwise be normal, given that we all misconstrue at times. The reason why I shove it to you is because of your laughable attempt to butt in, seek the spotlight and sensationalize matters, when you can’t even get your facts straight. Stop crying and using banter as a scapegoat to rid yourself of your still ongoing responsibility to present evidence after your initial butting in, and failure to do so.
quote:Until my post of 17 January, 2011 06:46 PM EST my observations and commentary were soley based on the CFA in the opening post excepting your post of two uncited plots necessitating my uncovering of their source in order to intelligently comment on them.
Newsflash, no one asked you to comment on them. They were not directed at you, they were directed at you butting into something, not really knowing what my point was, and me wanting to clarify myself to people who were reading and could be misconstruing my position after you came in talking about intra populational diversity. Also noteworthy, is that after I posted Grine’s maps and providing proof for my argument, you chose to shift the matter of contention by talking about Eurasians and how they lie close to Africans in Grine’s, and how that was supposedly incongruent with anything I said:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: 1) Is Grines(2007) Fig.4 then showing low between group variance of sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia whose ellipses much more closely overlap than the sub-Saharan and South African Khoe-San ellipses do?
Instead of admitting that factor analysis was the culprit for the lack of ellipse differentiation in Ribot fig4, you gave me that crap about Eurasians, to mask having to revisit your previous unsupported explanation:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Overall there is ingroup variation in those of large enough sampling and this is why outgroups overlap.
When I answered your ‘’beside the point’’ questions about Eurasians, you went into further distractions and doing what you ironically enough accuse me of doing; smoke screening, and basically talking about everything but the inadequateness of your unsupported explanation of Ribout fig4 ellipse overlap. You accuse me of double standards, which was a distraction as well, because I explained to you, in the very post you were responding to, the context wherein I said that Ribot fig4 gives off the impression that ‘’all Africans look the same’’:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Interesting how in Ribot's case overlapping would imply "all Africans look the same" but in Grine's case the nearly 1:1 overlap of WestEurasians and Africans merely "look similar in the appearance of the cranial landmarks under study."
So now, you go off talking about me not knowing your motives, which were quite transparent given your distractions about Eurasians and what not.
quote:It's coordinates in Ribot CFA Fig.4 (1.1,1.4) right next to two of the four Diola specimens
Yes, right next to two Diola in terms of vault, orbit and face size. How does this make ‘’the fossil’’, rather than a few landmarks on the fossil, ‘’cluster tightly’’ with two Diola? You mean to tell me that those words don't signal a global cranial interpretation of Ribot fig4, on your part?
quote:question about implications re mechtoid-Diola looks versus the standard view of mechtoids not resembling any "black Africans." Such questioning is standard and leads to further discovery and paradigms.
It was not your question that is a contention here, see the above
quote:I stand by what I wrote, have no need to further revisit it, and await opportunities to rationally and non-combatively discuss the subject header topic with other forum members.
Translation: After promising earlier to stop responding to anything posted by Kalonji, I saw an opening in this thread to correct him and readily and hastily took advantage of it. Now that I have been corrected myself on several occasions, following my own misguided attempts to correct and distract, using material such as bringing up Ribot’s conclusions that pertain to everything BUT fig4, I see that it’s better to retreat, and to use a few light comments directed at me as a scapegoat to justify my departure and exit gracefully.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I continue to stand by my earlier posts all emotional assholic projections and ad hominem caterwauling ignored as justly deserved.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The North African sample originates from Paris' Museum of Man collection of the countries Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, precise ethnicities unknown.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: I haven't come across any description of the constituents and the geographical sources of the "recent North African" samples, except for an almost meaningless reference to the sample size of 80.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I continue to stand by my earlier posts all emotional assholic projections and ad hominem caterwauling ignored as justly deserved.
^ You continue to stand by? I think ''lay by'' would be more appropriate because you have no leg to stand on. As for your self-comforting idea that you ignore the points because it is deserved? You mean, you're ignoring my post because you done shat yourself in the pants way too much for you to lift yourself up out of your own doo doo fest, with all your nonsense about Eurasians, Albiod clustering ''tightly'' using fig4 and unsupported claims of fig4 ellipse indistinctness because of high internal variation, that you pulled out of your ass.
Not to mention the distractions that followed after I water pressure washed that doo doo to another dimension, using Grine's plots.
Keep your pants clean the next time
I'll be on doodoo watch
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everytime I hand you your head you detract from the subject and retreat into trashtalk about me in hopes of hiding your glaringly blatant fuckups.
Calmly questioning and presenting counterviews without resort to personal ridicule would have earned you further response. Currently your lack of composure doesn't deserve on-topic replies.
I'm not a kid like you so childish taunting will fail to re-involve me in discourse with you on the topic.
STFU and stop trashing the thread with booty chatter. We want to discuss the subject not wallow in internet bragging bully bullshit. Bad talk is free and easy out of the reach of my backhand and boot.
Anyone with questions, comments, and especially criticisms expressed in an intelligent and respectful manner directed toward my analysis will receive a reply or clarification.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Everytime I ... you retreat into trashtalk about me.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: The reason why I shove it to you is because of your laughable attempt to butt in, seek the spotlight and sensationalize matters, when you can’t even get your facts straight. Stop crying and using banter as a scapegoat to rid yourself of your still ongoing responsibility to present evidence after your initial butting in, and failure to do so.
*How does fig4 in the OP show ''tight clustering'' of the Albiod specimen and two of the four Diola?
*Where does it say that fig4 indistinct ellipses are caused by abundant internal variation
*Where is your material that says Ribot found fig4 particularly indicative of high inter populational variation?
Stop b!tching and feinting imaginary authority, requesting that people leave, when you don't own this thread, and, to add insult to injury, made such a meagre appearance here.
Where is your material?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I gave it already.
Going back yielded the following bit:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: In the OP CFA plot, no global cranial relationships are presented.
Does that mean you revisited your original notion of a ''tight'' clustering of Albiod and two of the four Diola?
As for the answers to the other questions, you couldn't have posted them, because they post date your decision to stand by your earlier claims. In the case that I missed them and you did give them, prior to me bringing them up, point them out please.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: *Where does it say that fig4 indistinct ellipses are caused by abundant internal variation
*Where is your material that says Ribot found fig4 particularly indicative of high inter populational variation?
posted
If you give me your word as a man that you will stick to the topic and not indulge in ad hominem, ridicule, and the like, then tomorrow I will begin discussing the topic with you again to the aim of elucidation and clarification of my view not the objective of only one interpretation can be valid.
But for now an Avo and some Hartevelt are in order.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what you mean with Avo and Hartevelt, but if you lay off what you request of me as well, then my coop follows.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The North African sample originates from Paris' Museum of Man collection of the countries Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, precise ethnicities unknown.
Where is this pointed out in the Ribot et al. 2006 study at hand?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't, but she does tell where to find that information.
On page 201d Ribot gives the reference sources for her "modern craniometrical data" which has to be persued in the bibliography.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The North African sample originates from Paris' Museum of Man collection of the countries Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, precise ethnicities unknown.
Where is this pointed out in the Ribot et al. 2006 study at hand?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Specifying every other sample in the present journal, but not the "modern" northern African ones strikes me as carefree scholarship. Since, you provided no citations, I take it that the relevant piece you were alluding to above, is this provided under their Materials section:
The comparative corpus of modem craniometrical data (N=709) corresponds to five main regions (West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, Bantu South Africa, and North Africa), and two very small groups (Pygmies and Khoisan) (Ribot, 1998; Ribot & Labr, in press) (figure l). In addition, within the modern sample, some crania were also subdivided into 8 groups of known ethnic affiliation (when information was available in the archives) (table 2): 4 goups from West Africa ("griots" Lebu, "griots" Serer and Diola, Senegal; Ashanti, Ghana), 2 groups from Central Africa (N'Komi, Gabon; Basuku, Congo) and 3 from East Africa (Bahutu, Rwanda; Teita, Kenya; Beja, Galla and/or Somali, Ethiopia and/or Somalia). Finally, a group of unknown ethnic affiliation, the Nokara (Knip, l97l), was also included, as it originates from Mali, a neighbouring country to Senegal.
And what could well be the references provided in that piece above, that you were alluding to, is this:
RIBOT, I., 1998, Cranial variation in Equatorial Africa. Unpublished Master dissertation University of Cambridge
RIBOT, I. & LAHR, M.M., in press, Variation cranienne en Afrique Sub-Saharienne: la problematique bantoue. Actes du 24e Colloque GALF, L 'Anthropologie du 21e siecle, projets et perspective(Sinaia4-7 nov.1999), 10pp.
If so, which of the two above contains the relevant specific information for the samples used but not specified in the present study?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not just the modern N. Africans that Ribot left unspecified.
None of the modern geographical groups in Figs.2&3 are specified.
WA: West Africa (N=225) CA: Central Africa (N=238) EA: East Africa (N=115) BSA: Bantu South Africa (N=1) P: various Pygmies (N=21) NA: North Africa (N=80) N: Nokara, Mali (N=28): last 3 centuries
WA: West Africa (N=62) CA: Central Africa (N=43) EA: East Africa (N=26) BSA: Bantu South Africa (N=17) K: Khoisan (N=4) P: Pygmy (N=1)
Only the modern groups of known "ethnic" affiliation used in Figs.4&5 are specified in Table 2.
In some instances Ribot explains sample size reduction of a particular ethny but not in all. In genetics, precautions are usually taken to assure those sampled are not relatives. With these crania I highly doubt any such assurance, and undersampling definitely effects data analysis and interpretaion.
quote:The comparative corpus of modem craniometrical data (N=709) corresponds to five main regions (West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, Bantu South Africa, and North Afi:ica), and two very small groups (Pygmies and Khoisan)
quote:One-way analyses of variance show that modern popula- tions from all broad regions differ in most metrical dimensions. On the basis of the most significant results of the univariate analyses, three different sets of variables were used in four factor analyses (I-IV). The comparative modern sample was also analysed either on a broad geographical level (using all main regions of Africa), or in relation to both geographical and cultural backgrounds (using mainly the known ethnic groups).
quote:On a broad geographical level (figures 2 & 3), . . . - there are marked geographical differences between all main regions, especially between North Africa and all sub-Saharan Africa and within the latter:
quote:... keep in mind that our corpus of modern data is not fully representative of all Senegalese and African populations present recently or in the past,
quote:The results obtained here support previous craniometric (Froment, 1998) and genetic (Biondi et al., 1996) studies in showing a marked morphological differentiation between broad African regions, although there are many cranial features in common between all regions especially within sub-Saharan Africa.
quote:A stronger biological impact of populations from sub- Saharan Africa than from North Africa is also observed in the morphological diversifircation of the Senegalese since Iron Age up to present times.
For whatever it's worth, that, and Fig.2, is the use I can gather that Ribot put to the N. Afr sample set.
The comparative corpus of modem craniometrical data (N=709) corresponds to five main regions (West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, Bantu South Africa, and North Africa), and two very small groups (Pygmies and Khoisan) (Ribot, 1998; Ribot & Labr, in press) (figure l). In addition, within the modern sample, some crania were also subdivided into 8 groups of known ethnic affiliation (when information was available in the archives) (table 2): 4 goups from West Africa ("griots" Lebu, "griots" Serer and Diola, Senegal; Ashanti, Ghana), 2 groups from Central Africa (N'Komi, Gabon; Basuku, Congo) and 3 from East Africa (Bahutu, Rwanda; Teita, Kenya; Beja, Galla and/or Somali, Ethiopia and/or Somalia). Finally, a group of unknown ethnic affiliation, the Nokara (Knip, l97l), was also included, as it originates from Mali, a neighbouring country to Senegal.
And what could well be the references provided in that piece above, that you were alluding to, is this:
RIBOT, I., 1998, Cranial variation in Equatorial Africa. Unpublished Master dissertation University of Cambridge
RIBOT, I. & LAHR, M.M., in press, Variation cranienne en Afrique Sub-Saharienne: la problematique bantoue. Actes du 24e Colloque GALF, L 'Anthropologie du 21e siecle, projets et perspective(Sinaia4-7 nov.1999), 10pp.
If so, which of the two above contains the relevant specific information for the samples used but not specified in the present study?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's not just the modern N. Africans that Ribot left unspecified.
There are probably others not specified, in which case, I'd like to learn about them. Having some samples specified into ethnicities and/or geographical specificities, while not doing the same for the rest, only reinforces my characterization of the authors' sloppiness in approaching their study, or at least, in communicating their results to their audience.
quote: None of the modern geographical groups in Figs.2&3 are specified.
This is contradicted by the following from Ribot et al.:
In addition, within the modern sample, some crania were also subdivided into 8 groups of known ethnic affiliation (when information was available in the archives) (table 2): 4 goups from West Africa ("griots" Lebu, "griots" Serer and Diola, Senegal; Ashanti, Ghana), 2 groups from Central Africa (N'Komi, Gabon; Basuku, Congo) and 3 from East Africa (Bahutu, Rwanda; Teita, Kenya; Beja, Galla and/or Somali, Ethiopia and/or Somalia). Finally, a group of unknown ethnic affiliation, the Nokara (Knip, l97l), was also included, as it originates from Mali, a neighbouring country to Senegal.
Where is the "north African" equivalent of the above, in any shape or form? I did not see it in the journal at hand.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: None of the modern geographical groups in Figs.2&3 are specified.
This is contradicted by the following from Ribot et al.:
No it's not. That why I was careful elucidating the - modern geographical groups in Figs.2&3 from the - modern groups of known "ethnic" affiliation used in Figs.4&5
Again, only the latter (ethnic) are specified in Table 2 but not the former (geographical) which are all unspecified.
The Nokara are the only exception to the rule.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote: None of the modern geographical groups in Figs.2&3 are specified.
This is contradicted by the following from Ribot et al.:
In addition, within the modern sample, some crania were also subdivided into 8 groups of known ethnic affiliation (when information was available in the archives) (table 2): 4 goups from West Africa ("griots" Lebu, "griots" Serer and Diola, Senegal; Ashanti, Ghana), 2 groups from Central Africa (N'Komi, Gabon; Basuku, Congo) and 3 from East Africa (Bahutu, Rwanda; Teita, Kenya; Beja, Galla and/or Somali, Ethiopia and/or Somalia). Finally, a group of unknown ethnic affiliation, the Nokara (Knip, l97l), was also included, as it originates from Mali, a neighbouring country to Senegal.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
None of the modern geographical groups in Figs.2&3 are specified.
WA: West Africa (N=225) CA: Central Africa (N=238) EA: East Africa (N=115) BSA: Bantu South Africa (N=1) P: various Pygmies (N=21) NA: North Africa (N=80) N: Nokara, Mali (N=28): last 3 centuries
WA: West Africa (N=62) CA: Central Africa (N=43) EA: East Africa (N=26) BSA: Bantu South Africa (N=17) K: Khoisan (N=4) P: Pygmy (N=1)
Let's test how much your denial weighs; earlier, I posted a more complete piece of the same passage that I quote just moments ago -- quote:
The comparative corpus of modem craniometrical data (N=709) corresponds to five main regions (West Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, Bantu South Africa, and North Africa), and two very small groups (Pygmies and Khoisan) (Ribot, 1998; Ribot & Labr, in press) (figure l).In addition, within the modern sample, some crania were also subdivided into 8 groups of known ethnic affiliation (when information was available in the archives) (table 2): 4 goups from West Africa ("griots" Lebu, "griots" Serer and Diola, Senegal; Ashanti, Ghana), 2 groups from Central Africa (N'Komi, Gabon; Basuku, Congo) and 3 from East Africa (Bahutu, Rwanda; Teita, Kenya; Beja, Galla and/or Somali, Ethiopia and/or Somalia). Finally, a group of unknown ethnic affiliation, the Nokara (Knip, l97l), was also included, as it originates from Mali, a neighbouring country to Senegal.
What "within the modern sample" are the authors referring to here, if not that of that same "corpus of modem craniometrical data" of the reported sample size of 709 that the authors just referred to?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're referring to ethnic not geographic groups.
It's not a denial it's a statement reflecting that the study lists in its figures' embedded sidebars and reported in Table 2.
Before posting last night I carefully did a one on one check of Table 2 against the sidebars to ascertain which were specified in Table 2 and which were not there.
posted
The ethnic groups are traced back to geographies in table 2.
It is denial the way I see it, because you are saying that because in figure 2 the map doesn't break it down to ethnicities or more specific geographies, that the information for the other samples, barring the unspecified "north African" samples, were not provided. Had you understood that the samples implicated in fig. 2, when taken together, are actually the same entity as that "corpus of modern craniometrical data" that the authors were referring to in their 'Materials" section, you wouldn't be so quick to claim that "none" of the sample used in fig. 2 were specified.
Furthermore, even if we assumed that none of the samples used in fig. 2 were specified, how does that affect my charge of the authors' sloppiness about not specifying the northern African samples?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The labels are quite clear in all the figures' sidebars not just Fig.2. Ribot's major divisions of samples are 1). the geographical and 2). the ethnic.
quote:Our main objective is to evaluate the morphological affinities of Iron Age populations from Senegal with various modem African populations and earlier archaeological specimens ...
_I) On a broad geographical level, . . .
II) On a more detailed geographical level in relation to cultural or ethnic background
I have no comment about your charge of the authors' sloppiness since that's a judgement call of thoroughness.
My intent was to point out that not only were the North African geographical samples unspecified but that all geographical samples were unspecified and where to find the specifics on the North African geographical specimens for those interested in examining them.
For me it's enough that if one wants the specifics on North African and the other unspecified geographical samples, the authors cite references of where to find them instead of cluttering the report with data for 209 samples that are not the focus of the study.
My
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The labels are quite clear in all the figures' sidebars not just Fig.2. Ribot's major divisions of samples are 1). the geographical and 2). the ethnic.
You are evading the relevant matter here, which is that we know the ethnic and/or geographical specificities of samples from other territories, EXCEPT for the modern "northern African" samples. As I noted earlier, the only north African sample specified is the lone "Iron Age" one from Sudan.
The specified ethnic groups come from the same samples pooled into regional entities in fig 2.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
and where to find the specifics on the North African geographical specimens for those interested in examining them.
I was interested in "examining" the "specifics on the North African geographical specimens", and queried you on it, but you were not bothered with providing an answer.
Recall this, posted above...
And what could well be the references provided in that piece above, that you were alluding to, is this:
RIBOT, I., 1998, Cranial variation in Equatorial Africa. Unpublished Master dissertation University of Cambridge
RIBOT, I. & LAHR, M.M., in press, Variation cranienne en Afrique Sub-Saharienne: la problematique bantoue. Actes du 24e Colloque GALF, L 'Anthropologie du 21e siecle, projets et perspective(Sinaia4-7 nov.1999), 10pp.
If so, which of the two above contains the relevant specific information for the samples used but not specified in the present study?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Iron Age sample from Sudan is not a modern North African sample and is specified in Table 1.
We do not know the specifics of the modern geographical samples from WA: West Africa (N=225) CA: Central Africa (N=238) EA: East Africa (N=115) NA: North Africa (N=80) in Fig.2 nor the specifics of the modern geographical samples from WA: West Africa (N=62) CA: Central Africa (N=43) EA: East Africa (N=26) in Fig.3
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The labels are quite clear in all the figures' sidebars not just Fig.2. Ribot's major divisions of samples are 1). the geographical and 2). the ethnic.
You are evading the relevant matter here, which is that we know the ethnic and/or geographical specificities of samples from other territories, EXCEPT for the modern "northern African" samples. As I noted earlier, the only north African sample specified is the lone "Iron Age" one from Sudan.
The specified ethnic groups come from the same samples pooled into regional entities in fig 2.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gave the only information available on the modern North African samples, that they were taken from the Paris Museum of Man collection of the countries Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, precise ethnicities unknown.
The referenced sources are available to the scientific community and those who have contacts within the scientific community to assist them.
If you are able to obtain more info than I have done please post it. I would not mind seeing more myself but that's the best I could do. My thanks tu you in advance for anything else you can uncover.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
and where to find the specifics on the North African geographical specimens for those interested in examining them.
I was interested in "examining" the "specifics on the North African geographical specimens", and queried you on it, but you were not bothered with providing an answer.
Recall this, posted above...
And what could well be the references provided in that piece above, that you were alluding to, is this:
RIBOT, I., 1998, Cranial variation in Equatorial Africa. Unpublished Master dissertation University of Cambridge
RIBOT, I. & LAHR, M.M., in press, Variation cranienne en Afrique Sub-Saharienne: la problematique bantoue. Actes du 24e Colloque GALF, L 'Anthropologie du 21e siecle, projets et perspective(Sinaia4-7 nov.1999), 10pp.
If so, which of the two above contains the relevant specific information for the samples used but not specified in the present study?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Iron Age sample from Sudan is not a modern North
I know, which is why I specifically put emphasis on the term 'Iron Age' in quotation marks. The point was to invoke that it is the only specified "north African" specimen, but that it is not from the "modern" sample.
quote:We do not know the specifics of the modern geographical samples from WA: West Africa (N=225) CA: Central Africa (N=238) EA: East Africa (N=115) NA: North Africa (N=80) in Fig.2 nor the specifics of the modern geographical samples from WA: West Africa (N=62) CA: Central Africa (N=43) EA: East Africa (N=26) in Fig.3
You seem to be hard of understanding posted material. What does that "materials" section say about the "modern sample". Read it, cite it, and interpret it back to me. That might allow some headway, as I have already tried to clue you in to no avail.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I gave the only information available on the modern North African samples, that they were taken from the Paris Museum of Man collection of the countries Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, precise ethnicities unknown.
The referenced sources are available to the scientific community and those who have contacts within the scientific community to assist them.
But you claimed that the source was provided in the bibliography. I asked you to specify, and this is the second time you've evaded the request.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh oh. I opt out when my understanding is questioned. If you feel I can't understand the given report as well as you can then there's no need to waste your time discussing it with me is there?
I presented supportive quotes without once questioning your ability to understand it. I expect you to do the same respectfully.
Differing interpretations and opinions are expected to be supported even though they may fail to convince. That they explain should be well enough even though they don't allay continued disagreement.
It's up to the other readers to decide which explanations they will accept as correct or reject as incorrect. Whichever they choose, mine or yours, is fine with me.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The Iron Age sample from Sudan is not a modern North African sample and is specified in Table 1.
We do not know the specifics of the modern geographical samples from WA: West Africa (N=225) CA: Central Africa (N=238) EA: East Africa (N=115) NA: North Africa (N=80) in Fig.2 nor the specifics of the modern geographical samples from WA: West Africa (N=62) CA: Central Africa (N=43) EA: East Africa (N=26) in Fig.3
You seem to be hard of understanding posted material. What does that "materials" section say about the "modern sample". Read it, cite it, and interpret it back to me. That might allow some headway, as I have already tried to clue you in to no avail.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I gave the only information available on the modern North African samples, that they were taken from the Paris Museum of Man collection of the countries Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, precise ethnicities unknown.
The referenced sources are available to the scientific community and those who have contacts within the scientific community to assist them.
But you claimed that the source was provided in the bibliography. I asked you to specify, and this is the second time you've evaded the request. [/QUOTE]
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Uh oh. I opt out when my understanding is questioned.
That would be the easy way out. Your understanding is questioned based on empirical observation of inability to interpret specific data upon request. It is perfectly valid.
quote:
If you feel I can't understand the given report as well as you can then there's no need to waste your time discussing it with me is there?
If I thought I was wasting time, that is my call to make, and believe me, you'll know it when I do. I am trying to get to the bottom of where you got your information for "modern northern African" specimens from, as it is not provided in the study at hand.
quote: I presented supportive quotes without once questioning your ability to understand it. I expect you to do the same respectfully.
You are posting material that largely evade the relevant matter at hand. We already know that the figures have their own peculiar purposes, and how samples are classified accordingly, whether pooled in regional terms, or in ethnic terms. However, the relevant point here, is that we have some idea of what is constituted in many of the other samples here, save for the 'modern northern African" ones, because the material sections specifically says so. This is the point that you just can't see to come around to for some inexplicable reason.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic