posted
I swear, I'm so sick and tired of people posting this map of Brace which hides African diversity and overlap:
Notice here that three African populations[Dahomey, Haya, Gabon] are combined into one "sub-Saharan sample while Somalis are analyzed as a separate population as well as the indivdual European series. From looking at this one would get the false impression that there indeed is no overlap whatsoever between any of the Egyptian crania and so called "sub-Saharans." Now lets look at Keita's method but before that lets check the methodology because its always key to read the methods employed in a study instead of spamming charts, maps and dendograms:
quote:This analysis is different from one usingmultiple discriminant functions in that the crania are not analyzed in predefined groups, with a technique designed to maximize the between- to within-group variation. Rather, the operational taxonomic units are the individual crania. Using this approach the diversity of individuals could be mapped while retaining knowledge of their geographical and series of origin. Interregional overlap, as exhibited by the positions of individuals, is to be examined in the spirit of exploratory data analysis (EDA) (see Tukey, 1977). The emphasis on individuals and variation is meant to help circumvent the limitations of analyses whose starting point is predefined groups, and to explore beyond group thinking in order to get a different view of variation. This approach to human variation is consistent with the idea that the population may be the last ‘‘bastion’’ of the type concept (Brace, 1964).
Now that we got that out of the way, lets observe this from the same Keita study:
Badarian (predynastic Egypt) B Kerma (Kush, ancient Sudan) K Somali-Oromo (‘‘Horn’’) H Egypt (Gizeh, late dynastic) E Dogon (Mali) D Norse (Norway) N Zalavar (Hungary) Z Berg (Hungary) A Teita (Kenya) T Zulu (South Africa) X
Look at the variation you see here.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
One criticism I've heard of Keita's work is that he uses northern Europeans instead of Middle Easterners and Mediterranean people as the "Caucasians" for his comparisons with Egyptians and more southerly Africans. The idea is that had he used Meds, the Egyptians would cluster towards them rather than other Africans. Of course, such a scenario would make Meds closer to Africans than to northern Europeans, which is not what the likes of Dienekes would want anyway, but I'd still like to see him address this.
Also, why are predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians used for so many of these studies? Most people are interested in what the Egyptians at the peak of their civilization looked like, not what they may have looked like in the beginning.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: One criticism I've heard of Keita's work is that he uses northern Europeans instead of Middle Easterners and Mediterranean people as the "Caucasians" for his comparisons with Egyptians and more southerly Africans. The idea is that had he used Meds, the Egyptians would cluster towards them rather than other Africans. Of course, such a scenario would make Meds closer to Africans than to northern Europeans, which is not what the likes of Dienekes would want anyway, but I'd still like to see him address this.
Also, why are predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians used for so many of these studies? Most people are interested in what the Egyptians at the peak of their civilization looked like, not what they may have looked like in the beginning.
The Pre-Dynasty sample would provide a baseline for the study.
You may not want to use Meds because there would probably be admixture and the results would not be conclusive.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I posted this not to argue so much about Keita's samples but methodology, a methodology that accurately reflects the true diversity on Africans.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: One criticism I've heard of Keita's work is that he uses northern Europeans instead of Middle Easterners and Mediterranean people as the "Caucasians" for his comparisons with Egyptians and more southerly Africans. The idea is that had he used Meds, the Egyptians would cluster towards them rather than other Africans. Of course, such a scenario would make Meds closer to Africans than to northern Europeans, which is not what the likes of Dienekes would want anyway, but I'd still like to see him address this.
That's an unwarranted criticism, since Keita has compared Israelite samples with Egyptian samples.
quote: Also, why are predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians used for so many of these studies? Most people are interested in what the Egyptians at the peak of their civilization looked like, not what they may have looked like in the beginning.
Because as it became bigger, it became more cosmopolitan, by attracting immigration from less opportune places outside, like any other major economy does, and it also had been invaded by foreign powers with time. As such, you want to examine the core population before any influences of major immigration events and immediate centers of foreign occupation.
What do you mean by "peak" here anyway?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like these territorial maps/scatterplots by Keita, real and straight to the point. The E series those falling into an intermediate position and even mostly nearer to the Euros still shows some clustering on the tropical side which indicates some level continuity with the Badarians.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what timeframe and dynasties are covered in the E series? Anyone know?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wonder what timeframe and dynasties are covered in the E series? Anyone know?
Pretty sure it's 26th-30th
That being the case then E series truly are the "intermediates" between Maghrebian crania and tropical Africans. Me and astenb are debating this Horner dude on forumbiodiversity who thinks Egyptians have been essentially the same unchanged since Naqada, lol, the brother is ignoring the evidence and instead cites on Brace's cline and clusters study.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically, both the Maghbrebian series and the E series, that Keita studied, would have been intermediate between the tropical African bunch and the European (British-Romano) series.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe this "Horner Dude" is the same poster on here that was debating Swenet(Kalonji) on the Egyptians being Beja and not West Africans.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz ':
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I wonder what timeframe and dynasties are covered in the E series? Anyone know?
Pretty sure it's 26th-30th
That being the case then E series truly are the "intermediates" between Maghrebian crania and tropical Africans. Me and astenb are debating this Horner dude on forumbiodiversity who thinks Egyptians have been essentially the same unchanged since Naqada, lol, the brother is ignoring the evidence and instead cites on Brace's cline and clusters study.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Technically, both the Maghbrebian series and the E series, that Keita studied, would have been intermediate between the tropical African bunch and the European (British-Romano) series.
True when both and analyzed and scored on plots as a group, individually some of both the E series and Maghbrebian crania plot with well within tropical Africans and European crania. I keep tell people that Keita's territorial maps that shows affiliations based on individual crania is a much better indicator of variation as opposed to Brace's.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Bass you and those other Afrotards were already schooled by Racial Reality on this. Keita being the sneaky little **** that he is only used 10-15 variables in his 2005 cranial analysis, which gave the false impression of a closer relationship with various Negroid Africans over Northern Europeans. When this was bought to your attention you bitched out of the thread.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: Bass you and those other Afrotards were already schooled by Racial Reality on this. Keita being the sneaky little **** that he is only used 10-15 variables in his 2005 cranial analysis, which gave the false impression of a closer relationship with various Negroid Africans over Northern Europeans. When this was bought to your attention you bitched out of the thread.
Hey retard, in his 2004 study he used 47 measurements, seems you can't read studies.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
I am talking specifically about "S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data." You and the other Afroturds got called out on touting around the conclusions of this study, until Racial Reality pointed out the specific text within the study in which Keita even tries to back his use of only those 10-15 variables.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: I am talking specifically about "S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data." You and the other Afroturds got called out on touting around the conclusions of this study, until Racial Reality pointed out the specific text within the study in which Keita even tries to back his use of only those 10-15 variables.
Its not about how many variables you use its about which ones you use, Racial Reality is no anthropologist so why listen to him?
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The subject was approached from an exploratory perspective, using different variable sets and techniques to examine the structure of the data. Analyses were carried out using 15 and 11 metric variables (see Table 2). Anatomically, the variables were chosen to represent the major embryological areas of the skull, in a balanced fashion, and for their likely genetic basis (see Keita, 1988). The smaller set eliminates measurements that cross the major developmental regions of the cranium and/or that have less demonstrated heritability. The number of variables was selected to maximize biostatistical validity and conforms to findings that indicate that this is likely best achieved when the variable set is numerically smaller than the number of cases (individuals) in the smallest sample (see Corruccini, 1978; Sjovold, 1975; Van Vark, 1976). Also, no ratios, proportions, or indices were used to be consistent with the best practice advocated by biomathematicians. The Mahalanobis distance technique only makes use of the unique contribution of each variable because it, in effect, eliminates correlations between variables, unlike Penrose or Euclidean distances.
posted
Exactly dumb ass he only uses 10-15 variables! How in the **** can you base such conclusions on a fraction of the variables that were available. Its dishonest Afrocentrism!
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: I am talking specifically about "S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data." You and the other Afroturds got called out on touting around the conclusions of this study, until Racial Reality pointed out the specific text within the study in which Keita even tries to back his use of only those 10-15 variables.
Hey dumb phuck, how many variables do you think went into creating this 2002 Zakrzewski slide, where NONE E-series remains went into earlier dynastic and predynastic clusters, and vice versa:
Your ass should be gratefull, instead of bitching about Keita's work. With his lower amount of variables, some predynastic and dynastic material actually classed with the E series, and vice versa. Using more variables will only create larger gaps between Europeans and Ancient Egyptians.
Its not about how many variables you use its about which ones you use, Racial Reality is no anthropologist so why listen to him?
Yes, the variables are used based on their discriminant and/or heritability power. Accordingly, Keita had on occasions used up to 13 such variables in his early work, and then reduced them on other occasions, when preliminary analysis bore out that certain variables were superfluous and/or were not variable along heritability lines.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: I swear, I'm so sick and tired of people posting this map of Brace which hides African diversity and overlap:
Notice here that three African populations[Dahomey, Haya, Gabon] are combined into one "sub-Saharan sample while Somalis are analyzed as a separate population as well as the indivdual European series. From looking at this one would get the false impression that there indeed is no overlap whatsoever between any of the Egyptian crania and so called "sub-Saharans." Now lets look at Keita's method but before that lets check the methodology because its always key to read the methods employed in a study instead of spamming charts, maps and dendograms:
quote:This analysis is different from one usingmultiple discriminant functions in that the crania are not analyzed in predefined groups, with a technique designed to maximize the between- to within-group variation. Rather, the operational taxonomic units are the individual crania. Using this approach the diversity of individuals could be mapped while retaining knowledge of their geographical and series of origin. Interregional overlap, as exhibited by the positions of individuals, is to be examined in the spirit of exploratory data analysis (EDA) (see Tukey, 1977). The emphasis on individuals and variation is meant to help circumvent the limitations of analyses whose starting point is predefined groups, and to explore beyond group thinking in order to get a different view of variation. This approach to human variation is consistent with the idea that the population may be the last ‘‘bastion’’ of the type concept (Brace, 1964).
Now that we got that out of the way, lets observe this from the same Keita study:
Badarian (predynastic Egypt) B Kerma (Kush, ancient Sudan) K Somali-Oromo (‘‘Horn’’) H Egypt (Gizeh, late dynastic) E Dogon (Mali) D Norse (Norway) N Zalavar (Hungary) Z Berg (Hungary) A Teita (Kenya) T Zulu (South Africa) X
Look at the variation you see here.
Yep.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic