Journal of Human Evolution (2000) 39, 269–288

"Rightmire (1975) statistically analysed
Late Stone Age (LSA) human crania from
Elmenteita, Willey’s Kopje and Makalia,
using 34 metric measurements. The LSA
crania were compared with an Egyptian E
series from Gizeh, East and South African
Negroes and Khoisan samples. Multiple discriminant analyses were performed on the
available data using 24 and 34 measurements,
respectively. Results indicated that
at least some of the LSA material from
Kenya was inappropriately labelled as a
‘‘Mediterranean Caucasoid’’ population as
they show no affinities to the Egyptian E
(presumably of Caucasoid origins) series.
Instead, LSA individuals such as Elmenteita
A and Elmenteita B display Negroid affinities.....Rightmire’s analyses demonstrate the morphological variability among the studied LSA specimens; even the Elmenteita A, B, D, and F1 which are from the same geographic location and temporal timeframe display a considerable amount of morphological variance."

"De Villiers & Fatti (1982) analysed the
antiquity of the Bantu-speaking populations
in sub-Saharan Africa using both modern
and prehistoric specimens. The authors
performed discriminant function analysis
using a total of 53 cranial and mandibular
measurements. Results indicate that LSA
East African specimens are not far removed
from the recent Negro sample they used."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Topdog:
Rightmire’s analyses demonstrate the morphological variability among the studied LSA specimens

---

Morphologicial variability is the norm, in the past and present.

This is why the notion of typological classification of skulls into 'races' is specious.

And leads over and again to affiliations which are not credible.

And questions which cannot be answered by mere...

quote:

---

"The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.

"Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an 'Out-of-Africa' scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other 'Negroid' tribes."

-- Howells, 1995

---

quote:

---

"FORDISC is an interactive computer program designed to classify an unknown adult cranium based on the reference samples in its database. FORDISC uses discriminant functions to construct a classification matrix and assign group membership of the unknown cranium into one of the selected reference groups. The researcher guides the analysis by choosing the populations against which to classify the unknown, choosing from eleven population samples from the Forensic Anthropology Data Bank or twenty-eight population samples from Howells' (1989) worldwide database. The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples and failure to properly evaluate the typicality and posterior probabilities provided by the program. In this paper, unknown crania from populations known not to belong to any of the reference samples will be analyzed, demonstrating the interpretation of posterior and typicality probabilities provided in the FORDISC output and the importance of the use of an appropriate reference sample."

-- Freid et al. 2005

---

quote:

---

"Model-based clustering is applied to 2,504 crania of 28 populations of recent Homo sapiens using 57 cranial metric variates. This technique uses no a priori knowledge about the population affiliation of each skull."

-- Howells, 1989

"The 20 measurements listed in Table 1, as defined by Moore-Jansen et al. (1994), were used in the Forensic Data Bank and this study. This large Spanish sample offers an excellent opportunity to examine the application of FORDISC 2.0 to a diverse sample not represented in the database."

-- Ubelaker et al. 2002

---

quote:

---

The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples

---

quote:

---

Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania.

---

quote:

---

"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'"

---

quote:

---

Howells E series cannot be considered a typical Egyptian series

---

quote:

---

Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population.

---

quote:

---

Individual crania were classified according to the best fit with Howells database but the samples clearly were inadequate to elucidate the specific geographical origin of the Spanish population

---

quote:

---

These results suggest that
Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the
biological affinity of ancient Nubians.

---

quote:

---

Because the populations used are defined not on the basis of biology but on the basis of the variation in skeletal series or on self assignment to folk cat-egories; our results suggest that the attempt to classify populations into races—as if all of these groupings were biologically equivalent, will continue to fail (Armelagos and VanGerven 200)

---

quote:

---

suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

---

quote:

---

Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations

---

quote:

---

the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super coon:
To Rasol's post:
Wow. You put the last nail on that coffin!

---

All the Babbling Ape did was post examples of the "'incorrect' classifications" due to human error that are referenced by Freid et al., the most evident being Ubelaker's analysis of Spaniards using only 20 of Howells' 57 measurements.

The Ape also threw in some off-topic and totally irrelevant quotes, consistent with his desperate "kitchen sink" methodology. E.g.:

"Howells E series cannot be considered a typical Egyptian series" (Howells never claims that it can, and even if he did, it would have no bearing on the analysis of pre-historic East Africans or the efficacy of FORDISC)

"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'" (Howells assigned skulls to populations, not to races -- and again, no bearing on the issues at hand)

quote:

---

TopDog writes:
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:

p. 96

"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.

p.101

"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

What does all of this mean dumb Euro?

---

It means Dienekes fanboy is too stupid to understand anything, much less answer.

Less human error than Euromonkey buffoonery....

quote:

---

The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples

---

quote:

---

Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania.

---

quote:

---

"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'"

---

quote:

---

Howells E series cannot be considered a typical Egyptian series

---

quote:

---

Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population.

---

quote:

---

Individual crania were classified according to the best fit with Howells database but the samples clearly were inadequate to elucidate the specific geographical origin of the Spanish population

---

quote:

---

These results suggest that
Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the
biological affinity of ancient Nubians.

---

quote:

---

Because the populations used are defined not on the basis of biology but on the basis of the variation in skeletal series or on self assignment to folk cat-egories; our results suggest that the attempt to classify populations into races—as if all of these groupings were biologically equivalent, will continue to fail (Armelagos and VanGerven 200)

---

quote:

---

suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

---

quote:

---

Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations

---

quote:

---

the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe."

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 23 August 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

quote:

---

Supercar writes,
To Rasol's post:
Wow. You put the last nail on that coffin

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

---

Cheers to ginney ho's grave.

No answers =

quote:

---

TopDog writes:
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:

p. 96

"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.

p.101

"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

What does all of this mean dumb Euro?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

---

Cheers to ginney ho's grave.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
What does all of this mean dumb Euro?

---

It means that classifying prehistoric specimens is an imperfect science, but good enough for Howells to draw and publish these unavoidable conclusions:

quote:

---

"The DISPOP results here are not indicative of anything, except a general non-African nature for all these skulls. Display of POPKIN distances (infra) reinforces this and seems to find nearer neighbors among such more generalized populations as Peru, Guam, or Ainu, but also Europeans or even Easter Island.

"Remembering that the Teita series (Bantu speakers of southeastern Kenya), and the recent East African skulls in table 4 above, do clearly exhibit African affiliations, it is fair to say, contra Rightmire, that there seems to be no clear continuity here in late prehistory. On the broad scale, looking at an 'Out-of-Africa' scenario, one would expect that, in some region between southern and northeastern Africa, some differentiation would have been taking place within a Homo sapiens stock, evolving into something beginning to approximate later Sub-Saharan peoples on the one hand, and evolving in another direction on the other hand. East Africa would be a likely locale for appearance of the latter. So anyone is welcome to argue that this is what Elmenteita et al. are manifesting. The ensuing picture for East Africa, that is to say, would later have been changed through replacement by the expansion of Bantu or other 'Negroid' tribes."

-- Howells, 1995

---

It also means that you're a drowning Afronut desperate to discredit Howells (a world-renowned anthropologist) because his findings annihilate your only reason for living.

quote:

---

TopDog writes:
From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:

p. 96

"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.

p.101

"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

What does all of this mean dumb Euro?

---

After several months, dumb Euro finally attempts to answer, but screws up as usual...

quote:

---

Euromonkey screeches: It means that classifying prehistoric specimens is an imperfect science

---

Wrong, Monkey-mouth.

The answer is quite simply that Howells reference samples are flawed.....

Howells datbase does not even have Nilo-saharan and Cushitic groups who are descendant of the Mesolithic Kenyan skeletal materials he studied.

Hence....

quote:

---

'incorrect' classifications, are often due to inappropriate reference samples- Freid et al.

---

Howells is thus likened to a blind monkey [no wonder you can relate to him] desperately seeking a needle in a haystack with "eyes wide shut".

By contrast Rightmire, De Villiers & Fatti, Keita, Hiernaux, Zakrezewski and others actually did compare ancient East African crania to their descendants, and unlike Howells, have drawn credible conclusions....

Recent linguistic and archaeological findings are also reviewed, and these seem to support application of the term Nilotic Negro to the early Rift populations.

Howells database has no Nilotics, therefore it is HIS USE of inappropriate reference samples which leads to affliations which are not credible.

Which is further exposed by the following....

quote:

---

Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania.

---

And...

quote:

---

Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population.

---

And...

quote:

---

Howells E series cannot be considered a typical Egyptian series

---

Moreover, the problem isn't specific to African Crania. Howells program and database lead to classification of 16th century spain as 35% Black, as well as part, Eskimo, part Japanese, etc.. Leading the Smithsonian institute to conclude....

quote:

---

Individual crania were classified according to the best fit with Howells database but Howells samples clearly were inadequate to elucidate the specific geographical origin of the Spanish population

---

Thus the same problem is manifest over and over again, and is clearly inherent in Howells database.

Moreover....

quote:

---

Because the populations used are defined not on the basis of biology but on the basis of the variation in skeletal series or on self assignment to folk cat-egories; our results suggest that the attempt to classify populations into races—as if all of these groupings were biologically equivalent, will continue to fail (Armelagos and VanGerven 200)

---

And finally,

quote:

---

"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'"

---

What this means is that even if Howells' database were not badly flawed, the root assumptions involved in using skulls to classify into race are flawed.

This is why Chris Stinger, who studied ancient European crania makes the following observation.....

quote:

---

Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations

---

quote:

---

the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful."

---

Try again dumb Euro.

quote:

---

Howells did not assign skulls to races, he simply observed that his east African skulls resembled non-African more than they did his Sub-Saharan African samples.

The following objections were raised against this observation: (i) that Howells' database lacked appropriate modern east African samples, and (ii) that Howells' procedure cannot reliably assign skulls to races.

Objection (i) raises the possibility that east African samples might resemble prehistoric Africans. This is of course possible, but (a) if that were the case, then it would not alter the fact that the prehistoric Africans are closer to non-Africans than to the three African populations, and (b) it still remains to be shown that this is in fact the case; it is up to those who hold this belief to measure the appropriate populations and compare them with prehistoric East Africans.

Objection (ii) hinges on the failure of FORDISC in a Spanish sample. Of course, one expects discriminant functions to perform worse on test data than on the training data that were used to build them. Moreover, the reported failure occurred with a set of only 20 measurements, which is approximately 1/3 of the full set of 57 used by Howells in his published study of prehistoric crania. Therefore, it is not clear that this is a failure of his method, or (more likely) due to the reduced measurement set.

---

From Howells crania fails Spanish test

Dienekes makes the following lame excuses:

Howells did not assign skulls to races, he simply observed that his east African skulls resembled non-African more than they did his African reference samples.

Parrot dumb Euro can't even think well enough to realise that this is precisely the problem noted in his own abstract quotation:

quote:

---

The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect classifications....disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples.

---

More from Euro Dummy's plagiarised source.

quote:

---

Chris Jones replies to Dienekes:

We agree that Howells/Fordisc fails, in that it often results in absurd misclassification of crania.

Where we differ is that I concur with scholars, Ross, Ubelaker, Ousley & Jantz, Belcher & Williams, etc.. who are all quite clear on the reasons for the past failures of Howells/data-program.

You have not addressed any of the failings in Howells program as stated in the studies cited.

So, it is unclear what exactly you wish us to credit you with?

---

Dienekes has no answer. Moreover, under presssure, Dienekes is known for choking by way of bizarre and self-defeating comments.

Consider this exchange from the same thread:

quote:

---

Dienekes wrote:
Prehistoric east Africans were every bit as African as Central and West Africans.

Chris jones replies: Correct! Which is exactly why Howells was being absurd in defining such populations as "non-African."

---

And...

quote:

---

Dienekes wrote: Howells did not assign skulls to races.

Chris Jones replies: Truth, so why do YOU keep trying to do so, especially since you clearly know that its nonsense?

---

Once again, Dienekes fails to answer.

Lastly, several posters notice the contradiction -

quote:

---

TopDog asks: If you agree that pre-historic East Africans are just as African as W and C Africans please explain why do you cite an anthropologist that says they're non-African??????

---

Even Dienekes fellow Medit- Mike the Hellene takes notice of this screw up:

quote:

---

Mike writes: It's kind of funny you say that prehistoric East Africans are every bit as African as their central and western compatriots, but then you say in this quote below that prehistoric East Africans don't show "African" affiliations

---

"Funny" indeed. Nearly as funny is Dienekes complete inability to answer any of the above. Why is that?

Meanwhile back in Euro-Disney land:

Will Dumb Euro 'ever' learn that parroting is not a substitute for thinking?

Rotfl@ a dumb
who even parrots Dienekes past humiliations.

Perhaps both suffer from shared [sexually transmitted?] mental illness.

"anti-human wop ho, is like a well read book; no surprises in the barrenness of that vestigial vessel that it calls a head, which is an obvious impediment in ginney wuss’s comprehension of its own references of graphs and a number of studies that underwent transparently crude wop defacement, every one of which, have already been appropriately dealt with here."

Case in point...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Parrot dumb Euro can't even think well enough to realise that this is precisely the problem noted in his own abstract quotation:

The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect classifications....disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples-Freid et al. 2005

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Babbling Ape:
Once again, Dienekes fails to answer.

---

His answer is contained within that very passage, which desperate, dishonest niggers quote from selectively to create straw-man arguments:

"Prehistoric east Africans were every bit as African as Central and West Africans. There are no true Africans, but that does not alter the fact that the prehistoric east Africans were not Negroids. Negroids don't have a monopoly on true Africanness."

This allows them to focus on the messenger and ignore the message (which went unanswered at Dodona, as it did here):

quote:

---

Howells did not assign skulls to races, he simply observed that his east African skulls resembled non-African more than they did his Sub-Saharan African samples.

The following objections were raised against this observation: (i) that Howells' database lacked appropriate modern east African samples, and (ii) that Howells' procedure cannot reliably assign skulls to races.

Objection (i) raises the possibility that east African samples might resemble prehistoric Africans. This is of course possible, but (a) if that were the case, then it would not alter the fact that the prehistoric Africans are closer to non-Africans than to the three African populations, and (b) it still remains to be shown that this is in fact the case; it is up to those who hold this belief to measure the appropriate populations and compare them with prehistoric East Africans.

Objection (ii) hinges on the failure of FORDISC in a Spanish sample. Of course, one expects discriminant functions to perform worse on test data than on the training data that were used to build them. Moreover, the reported failure occurred with a set of only 20 measurements, which is approximately 1/3 of the full set of 57 used by Howells in his published study of prehistoric crania. Therefore, it is not clear that this is a failure of his method, or (more likely) due to the reduced measurement set.

---

This is the most redicules thing I have ever heard in my entire life. On top of all that didn't you once claim that west and central Africans were negroid but the east Africans were not??????

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serpent Wizdom:
This is the most ridicules thing I have ever heard in my entire life. On top of all that didn't you once claim that west and central Africans were negroid but the east Africans were not??????

Please explain yourself Mr. Abino, chimpanzee cloned, recessive, difficient, mutated, half-humanoid, psychotic, genocidal, maniac, suicidal nut case--better known as Euro-monkey.

---

Dienekes is a Greek Nationalist who tells what ever lie he needs to, in order to run away from the fact that southern Europeans have a heterogeneous MIXTURE of paternal lineages from Europe, Asia and Black Africa.

His lies play best, if you don't listen to him too closely or for too long.

Otherwise it becomes clear that contradicting and reversing himself is typical with him;
that he realises this;

and that he could care less so long as it hopefully 'deceives' someone else.

Example:

quote:

---

Thought Quotes Dienekes:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

Earliest examples of the four major racial types

"The earliest know Negroids date from the ~14,500-12,500BP site of Jebel Sahaba in Lower Nubia."

Thought Writes:

The Jebel Sahaba remains posit "Negroids" in Egypt (Lower Nubia) prior to the spread of E3b out of Africa.

---

* note: this is 5,000 years earlier(!) than the crania Howells misclassified.

Meanwhile, Dienekes in dispair, hangs on to Howells by his fingernails - yet pretends to ignore the "messy bits" that completely contradict his race-fantasies:

quote:

---

the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe. - WW Howells

---

lol. I truly pity anyone dumb enough to take Dienekes seriously. His fan-boy is a gay monkey, and deserves all the contempt being heaped upon him.