posted
It seems that the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities questions Cicero Moraes facial reconstruction of the Nazlet Khater 2 man.
quote:
‘Real face’ of ancient Egyptian man: Ministry comments on latest research
CAIRO: The Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities has disputed the credibility of research used to reimagine the face of the Nazlet Khater skeleton — Nazlet Khater man.
The face of an ancient Egyptian who died more than 30,000 years ago was recently reconstructed by scientists.
The skeleton is currently on display at the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Cairo and the suggestions of two of the researchers recently raised interest on social media.
The ministry issued a statement on the results of the studies conducted by the researchers from Brazil to reimagine the face of the skeleton found in Nazlet Khater in Upper Egypt.
Museum authorities said that the Brazilian researchers had not taken the correct and internationally recognized scientific, administrative and legal measures in scientific research.
The statement added: “The two researchers did not submit any request to the museum authority to photograph the skeleton of Nazlat Khater to study its anatomical measurements.”
They also did not indicate that they had obtained the anatomical measurements of the skeleton from any other party, which did not lend credibility to the results of the research and the anatomical proportions contained in it or to the process of reimagining the face, the statement said.
The researchers relied in their research on the artistic vision of the skeleton of Nazlat Khater based on the use of graphic programs and not on the anatomical measurements of the skeleton, which led to reaching these results, which contradict the standards of scientific research, the statement said.
The skeleton was found in 1980 near the village of Nazet Khater in Sohag Governorate, southern Egypt. It dates back to the Upper Palaeolithic period — about 34,000 years ago. The skeleton was found buried with a stone tool.
The Belgian mission operating in Egypt discovered it during its excavations in the village in 1980.
The mission transported the remains to Belgium to study, restore and assemble them into a complete skeleton.
The studies conducted on the remains revealed many facts about its owner and the environment in which he lived.
Scientists named the skeleton “Nazlet Khater man” in reference to the place where the remains were discovered.
The Nazlet Khater skeleton is one of the most significant archaeological discoveries in Egypt. It has attracted much scientific interest locally and internationally, as it is the second-oldest known skeleton in Egypt.
"The two researchers did not submit any request to the museum authority to photograph the skeleton of Nazlat Khater to study its anatomical measurements.”
They also did not indicate that they had obtained the anatomical measurements of the skeleton from any other party, which did not lend credibility to the results of the research and the anatomical proportions contained in it or to the process of reimagining the face, the statement said."
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on, you guys posted all those Ancestral Whispers reconstructions similarly lacking in method
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Now, I have heard rumors that the artists who created this recent one tried to go for a 'Khoisan' look due to the findings of Pinhasi et al. (2000) that he represented a "Proto-Khoisan". As if a modern Khoisan is the same as his ancestral "proto" form. But let's go over what Pinhasi actually wrote:
Nazlet Khater falls closer to the Late Palaeolithic Nubian samples.... If an ancestral descendant relationship existed between Nazlet Khater and the Late Palaeolithic Nubian specimens, then regional continuity persisted among the Upper/Late Pleistocene populations of the Upper Nile region. The Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population which is a descendant of a larger sub-Saharan stock, which extended as far north as present day upper Egypt sometime during the Last Interglacial period, or the early part of the Last Glacial period. Both hypotheses are compatible with the hypothesis proposed by Brothwell (1963) of an East African proto-Khoisan Negro stock which migrated southwards and westwards at some time during the Upper Pleistocene, and replaced most of the local populations of South Africa. Under such circumstances, it is possible that the Nazlet Khater specimen is part of a relict population of this proto-Khoisan Negro stock which extended as far north as Nazlet Khater at least until the late part of the Late Pleistocene. At the onset of the Holocene, the proto-Khoisan Negro stock became differentiated to proto-Negro and large proto-Khoisan varieties. The proto-Negro stock migrated west and the large proto-Khoisan varieties migrated south.... ...The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures.. The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible. Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations. In such a scenario, the Nazlet Khater belongs to a relict population which retained some of the morphological features [form & structure] that were present among Middle Stone Age populations, but no longer present in other contemporaneous sub-Saharan and North African populations. --- The Position of the Nazlet Khater Specimen Among Prehistoric and Modern African and Levantine Populations, Ron Pinhasi, Departent of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, U.K., Patrick Semal, Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Belgium; Journal of Human Evolution (2000) vol. 39, 269–288.
As you can see he was described as "proto-Khoisan Negro" presuming from his features that he was ancestor of BOTH Khoisan and "Negroes".
And here is a craniometric PCA from Vermeersch et al. 2002
As Parahu points out in his blog: The Nazlet Khater cohort clusters nearest to the Sub-Saharan Late Middle Stone Age specimens (MSA), and more distantly with ancestral Khoisan samples from Loyangalani, Springbok Flats, Kalomo and Fish Hoek. By contrast, the Nazlet Khater specimen is morphologically distinct from the Predynastic Egyptian Badarian sample, which groups instead with modern North African individuals (Actual North Africa), Algeria Protohistoric individuals and other ancient North African and Levantine specimens. Nazlet Khater is also distinct from the Taforalt and other Iberomaurusian samples. The latter individuals cluster instead with the Capsians and Neolithic Northwest African specimens, who in turn are nearest to the modern Levant sample.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I think the Nazlet Khater man would have been a lot darker-skinned than what they went with here. The second Ancestral Whispers reconstruction seems closer to the mark to me.
Also, what are the odds that a population like his could have evolved into (or at least admixed with) the forerunners of predynastic Egypto-Nubians? That craniometric chart portrays him as more “sub-Saharan”-like, but imagine what thirty millennia of evolution could have done to his people since then. Remember, almost all humans would have started out looking at least vaguely “negroid” (for lack of a less problematic term) if I am not mistaken.
UPDATE: Although, after doing more digging, it's possible the Nazlet Khater specimen is more closely related to Upper Nilotic-looking peoples from the latest Pleistocene such as those found at Wadi Halfa and Jebel Sahaba, as described in the below paper:
posted
Mind everyone that this latest reconstruction of NK Man is not the result of "white-wash" so much as a hypothesis that his complexion resembled that of modern Khoisan aborigines of Southern Africa. Again another example of why forensic reconstruction is as much an art as it is a science. The problem is that we don't know what NK's actual complexion was and we may never know since as far as I remember his skull is fossilized and there is no DNA to extract. But skin color aside, there is also the issue of tissue depth markers which vary from population to population. For example, one issue with ancient Egyptian reconstructions is that artists tend to use tissue depth markers of Europeans or Arabs instead of ethnic Baladi. But in the case of NK we are dealing with an Upper Paleolithic individual even UP populations have different tissue depths than their modern descendants.
As I've shown in my previous post, he displayed as much "Negroid" features as he did "Bushmanoid" and note how both are Sub-Saharan populations yet distinct from one another today.
Vermeersch's metric analysis was based on the the mandible of NK and metric data from the jaws seem to have a greater genetic basis than that of metric craniofacial traits.
Again NK is closest to Middle Stone Age specimens of Sub-Sahara, which were found primarily in the Rift Valley region of Kenya and Tanzania. Second to MSA is the Kalomo sample which I presume comes from the pre-Iron Age sample discovered in the 1920's northern Rhodesia (modern southern Zambia). The Kalomo speciman was described as "Boskopoid" with the Boskopids representing a population that was antecedant or ancestral to the Khoisan. You can read the original paper of Kalomo here.
Interestingly, modern Khoisan types as represented by Springbok Flats and Loyangalani are as distant to NK as Fish Hoek and Ishango, yet all of these specimens are in Sub-Sahara with NK being Northeast African. This is why people should not try to make assumptions about ancient let alone prehistoric populations.
So what would you say Nazlet Khater's affinities would have been? Would he have been most closely related to pre-OOA Africans, Central Africans, Khoisan peoples, or some other group entirely?
Hawass calls the reconstruction a "false scenario" in a recent post-Netflix documentary from May 10th at the same time commenting on, in his view, Cleopatra's lack of blackness and one of his arguments is that that two sculptured heads and coins (none painted) don't look "black" to him
this is why I am always arguing not to use the term "black" in anthropology since it has no standardized measurement and it's common linguistic usage definition, undoubtedly, is that it includes more than just skin color to the vast majority of Americans and in the UK and elsewhere You won't find most contemporary anthropologists, spouting off pedestrian arguments like Hawass is doing here, they know these old paradigm categories are problematic
On the flip side when shown a variety of people form different parts of the world with brown skin, advocates of the idea that "black" pertains to skin alone will consistently ignore acknowledging some of these people as black, going silent, they don't really believe what they say they believe, it's selective as per personal whim They want to be able to apply the term "black" just in cases they feel like for various socio-political reasons "black" and "white" are ridiculous terms if pretending they are scientific
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It seems that the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities questions Cicero Moraes facial reconstruction of the Nazlet Khater man.
wikipedia:
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazlet_Khater
Nazlet Khater
Excavations at the Nazlet Khater 2 site (Boulder Hill) yielded the remains of two human skeletons in 1980.[2] One of the skulls was that of a male subadult. The cranium was generally modern in form, but with a very wide face, and it evinced some archaic traits in the temple and mandible areas. Below the skull, the skeleton was robust, but otherwise, anatomically modern. Morphological analysis of the Nazlet Khater mandible indicates that the specimen was distinct from the examined Late Pleistocene and Holocene North African specimens.[3]
Ron Pinhasi and Patrick Semal (2000) found strong Sub-Saharan affinities in the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt as the authors noted "The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures. The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible , which are different from modern sub saharan africans. Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations.
I am surprised that they would choose to reconstruct the Nazlet Khater 2 skull when above we can see Nazlet Khater 1 is in much better condition
I usually try to find some more primary source, post that and optionally add some quote from an news article about it. The news may be putting spin on certain things
I went to wikipedia. At the end on the entry for the well known reconstruction artist Cicero Moraes, external links, his website. There he has a long list of reconstructions click on Nazlet Khater
He has a detailed article in Portuguese a detailed article on his methods, I am only posting a small part of it copy the URL into a translator for the whole article at once into English There is a lot of forensic methodology and computer mapping is discussed in the article
Introduction In the year of 1980, an almost complete skeleton, with the exception of the parts distant from two feet and hands, was found at the Nazlet Khater 2 (NK2) site, located in the Vale do Nile (Egypt), during the work of the Pre-historical Project of the Middle Belgian Egypt [B1] [B2] [B3] . Along with the mortal remains, a stone mache was found, very similar to others excavated at the Nazlet Khater 4 (NK4) site, dating from C14 in nine samples, positioned between 35,000 and 30,000 BP. Even in the 1980s, researchers tried to date the skeleton directly, or that it was not possible to face bone fragmentation [B1] , however, we used data from the NK4 site and established the age of the skeleton at ≈33,000 BP [ B4]. Currently, based on an electron spin resonance (ESR) dating study performed on two tooth fragments, it is estimated that the skeleton is approximately 38±6ka BP (Grün 2005, personal communication) [B2] [B3 ] [ B5 ] .
_____________________
two approaches related to facial approximation, one more objective and scientific and another more subjective and artistic. The scientific approach consisted in a bust endowed with two elements intimately linked to the statistical aspects of the approximation and once the initial stage of the process was composed only of data collected from tomographies and measurements of living individuals and of compatible population, it was possible to generate an anatomical face consistent and, to reduce incompatibility in the region of the orbit, rendered images with the dated eyes, as well as to avoid speculations about the tonality of the skin, without hair and hair, since there are no information about the configuration of these structures and the coloration chosen was scale of cinza, avoiding the information of the tonalidade of the skin,Fig. 11 ).
I am not a fan of reconstructions generally. I think they are made to sell magazines Since there is no information as to hair type or skin type evident, they should only be presented as below:
posted
The point of the OP was the news that the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities questioned Cicero Moraes facial reconstruction of the Nazlet Khater 2 man, not so much that I would post the scientific literature in full.
But it is of course interesting to see how Moraes did the reconstruction, then one can maybe judge if the criticism from the ministry was justified.
Seems the reconstruction was built from a video taken of the skull, which was then transformed to a series of images that was processed in different computer programs. Measurements was taken from scientific articles (mainly Thoma 1984).
Would have been interesting to compare a result obtained from a cast of the actual skull (even if such cast also must be modified to fill in the missing pieces of the skull).
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2683 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is another article about Nazlet Khater 2 from 2012
quote:Abstract The Nazlet Khater 2 skeleton was discovered in 1980 during the excavations of the Belgian Middle Egypt Prehistoric Project in the Nile Valley (Egypt). Its association with the early Upper Paleolithic chert mining site of Nazlet Khater 4 (NK 4) (whose exploitation period ranged from 35 to 40 ka) makes it the oldest almost complete Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3 modern human skeleton in northern Africa. The Nazlet Khater 2 (NK 2) remains belong to a young adult male. It is well preserved with the exception of the distal part of the legs and the foot. Comparative analyses of the specimen underline the complex morphology of modern humans from this time period. NK 2 exhibits several retained archaic features, notably on the face and the mandible. The inner ear structures display morphological characteristics that stand on the edge of extant human variation. The postcranial remains have strong muscular insertions and are adapted to high biomechanical strength. Furthermore, NK 2 has vertebral and membral lesions. These postcranial characteristics might be related to intensive mining activities. The study of this specimen provides an opportunity to increase our understanding of past modern human diversity during this time period (MIS 3) for which very rare human remains are known
Crevecoeur, I. (2012).The Upper Paleolithic Human Remains of Nazlet Khater 2 (Egypt) and Past Modern Human Diversity, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology, 205–219.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It seems that the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities questions Cicero Moraes facial reconstruction of the Nazlet Khater 2 man.
quote:
‘Real face’ of ancient Egyptian man: Ministry comments on latest research
Museum authorities said that the Brazilian researchers had not taken the correct and internationally recognized scientific, administrative and legal measures in scientific research.
The statement added: “The two researchers did not submit any request to the museum authority to photograph the skeleton of Nazlat Khater to study its anatomical measurements.”
They also did not indicate that they had obtained the anatomical measurements of the skeleton from any other party, which did not lend credibility to the results of the research and the anatomical proportions contained in it or to the process of reimagining the face, the statement said.
The researchers relied in their research on the artistic vision of the skeleton of Nazlat Khater based on the use of graphic programs and not on the anatomical measurements of the skeleton, which led to reaching these results, which contradict the standards of scientific research, the statement said.
I'm not sure how to judge this but the well known reconstruction artist Cicero Moraes said this about his methods:
(from the Portuguese):
The Facial Approximation of the Skull of Nazlet Khater 2
During a visit to Egypt and the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization in Fustad ( https://nmec.gov.eg/ ), one of the authors (MES), captured two full HD video sequences of the most complete lateral portion of the NK2 skull. The videos were processed in the add-on OrtogOnBlender ( http://www.ciceromoraes.com.br/doc/pt_br/OrtogOnBlender/index.html ), where they were converted into a sequence of images, of which 72 were selected for the process of photogrammetry [B7] .
However, the quality was not enough to show the structures, so the images resulting from the process were used for photogrammetry performed in the Metashape software ( https://www.agisoft.com/ ) , generating more accurate results [B8] and more detailed 3D surface information. The mesh resulting from the photogrammetry was exported as an .OBJ file and imported into the Blender 3D software ( https://www.blender.org/ ), which houses the add-on OrtogOnBlender, mentioned above ( Fig. 9, A). The skull was then aligned to the Frankfurt horizontal plane and, as the right portion of the structure had a large missing region, it was copied and mirrored in the X axis (sides), in order to provide part of the necessary structure for the complete recovery of the skull (Fig . 9 , B). Photogrammetry without scale references does not inform the size of the object, therefore measurements must be taken on the skull for later resizing. To place the skull on the scale, we resorted to the measures available in the work of Thoma (1984) [B6] . When observing the 3D model resulting from photogrammetry, an apparent reduction of the upper structure of the skull was noticed in relation to photographs presented in other works [B2] [B5] [B6]. The work by Bruner & Manzi (2002) [B9] provided structural data of the skull in a lateral view without perspective deformation (orthogonal view), thanks to the analysis of the volume from a computed tomography performed on the piece ( Fig. 9 , C ). When comparing the structures, it was attested that, in fact, the skull resulting from the photogrammetry had a smaller upper region than the orthogonal view of the tomography piece, in addition, the 3D model's jaw socket seemed a little more retracted, advancing the region of the porium, which concealed a picture of mandibular prognathism (class III), more clearly visible in the 2D projection of the orthographic view of the tomography ( Fig. 9, D).
They went in without permission and took some video of the skull and then turned this into 72 stills, then used various computer imaging programs
It says "of the most complete lateral portion"
That means side view How good their methods were I'm not sure
The Ancestral Whispers one is apparently just made from a photo and they present no methodological details
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Although the genetic background of this individual remains uncertain, his location and age suggest a possible affiliation with the ANA cluster, which is hypothesized to have contributed to the ancestry of the Iberomaurusians. Craniometric analysis indicates that he shares similarities with Middle Stone Age Sub-Saharan populations, as well as individuals from Wadi Halfa and Hassi-el Abiod. His mandible exhibits features similar to those found in modern Khoisan populations, although it is larger in overall size.
And they says of their general reconstruction method:
scroll down to "Reconstructions"
"The reconstruction method that we're using is largely based on Gerasimov's 1955 book,.... "
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It seems that the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities questions Cicero Moraes facial reconstruction of the Nazlet Khater 2 man.
Tourism is one of the leading sources of income, crucial to Egypt's economy. At its peak in 2010, the sector employed about 12% of workforce of Egypt, serving approximately 14.7 million visitors to Egypt, and providing revenues of nearly $12.5 billion as well as contributing more than 11% of GDP and 14.4% of foreign currency revenues
Again, you have not done the homework, you are creating a straw man here with evidence that they were trying for a Khoisan look The have simply rendered someone with a wide face
and put it into google translate, Portuguese to English they make no mention of Khoi or San, the reconstruction is built up from video stills. And the reconstruction does not even have the prototypical peppercorn hair which would be expected in achieving a "Khoisan look"
I keep looking at that skull however and it's hard to see how they would get that wide face out of it although there is a lot of detail on their methods to go over
I don't know if they used the old photo the article talks about a side view (lateral) and I wonder if they used that to extrapolate a front view but that seems odd
"one of the authors (MES), captured two full HD video sequences of the most complete lateral portion of the NK2 skull. "
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
So what would you say Nazlet Khater's affinities would have been? Would he have been most closely related to pre-OOA Africans, Central Africans, Khoisan peoples, or some other group entirely?
If you mean genetic affinities there's no way of knowing without DNA but his remains are fossilized. His cranio-morphological features are clearly Sub-Saharan and NOT North African or Eurasian despite being found in North Africa, yet strangely the only thing "Eurasian" about him are the shape of his ear bones. So he may have some genetic relation to OOA who knows.
It's interesting that Vermeersch's graph shows Nazlet Khater being 2nd closest to the Kalomo remains which are classified as 'boskopoid'. As I've mentioned earlier the Boskopo population was the one that seemed to immediately precede modern Khoisan people and differ from the latter in being taller and possessing greater pedomorphic features such as very proportionately large heads and small hands and feet. The Boskopids are said to be the human population with the greatest pedomorphy known and thus appear child-like in physique.
You can see the contrast between Khoisan and their Boskopid predecessors.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again, you have not done the homework, you are creating a straw man here with evidence that they were trying for a Khoisan look
What "homework"? Unlike you I'm not some schoolkid who is naïve to what's going on.
quote:The have simply rendered someone with a wide face
and put it into google translate, Portuguese to English they make no mention of Khoi or San, the reconstruction is built up from video stills. And the reconstruction does not even have the prototypical peppercorn hair which would be expected in achieving a "Khoisan look"
LOL They don't have to mention it, silly!
When 'Ancestral Whispers' did this reconstruction, there was no mention of "caucasoid" or "European" either.
Yet obviously that was the look they were going for.
My main point is that there exist a trend in anthropology to postulate that early H. Sapiens of Africa looked or resembled in someway the 'Khoisan' type, especially light skin.
This assumption is based solely on the fact that Khoisan today carry some of the oldest known lineages. Yet the same can be said about some Nilotic groups.
quote:I keep looking at that skull however and it's hard to see how they would get that wide face out of it although there is a lot of detail on their methods to go over
I don't know if they used the old photo the article talks about a side view (lateral) and I wonder if they used that to extrapolate a front view but that seems odd
"one of the authors (MES), captured two full HD video sequences of the most complete lateral portion of the NK2 skull. "
The wide face is typical of Khoisan people but I think the 2nd reconstruction by Ancestral Whispers is more accurate.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before the 2000 study by Pinhasi & Semal which I cited above with PCA graph, there was the 1990 study by Bräuer & Rimbach, called 'Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications'.
While the Pinhasi study emphasizes Nazlet Khater's cranial affinities with modern Sub-Saharans, the Rimbach study notes that the archaic traits of NK actually tie it with Upper Paleolithic Europeans as well as Sub-Saharans and puts both groups together with earliest OOA (Qafzeh and Skhul) as opposed to Neanderthals confirming the latter to be a different species. The comparison of latest Pleistocene North Africans with Upper Paleolithic Europeans (t3,2) also yielded the interesting result that only four indices showed significant differences. No significant differences were obtained for the remaining 34 measurements and 10 angles (LX = 1%). These indicate that the vault of the Upper Paleolithic Europeans is somewhat narrower and lower. In contrast, the comparison between Northern and sub-Saharan Africans of the latest Pleistocene/early Holocene (t4,5) yielded a number (28.6% ) of significant differences (α = 1%). The cranial vault of the Africans from south of the Sahara is smaller and lower. There are certain differences in the mid-sagittal curvature. The mid-face is also distinctly narrower and sagittally somewhat shorter; the alveolar and nasal regions, however, are more prominent. Altogether, the differences between the two groups do not appear to be as great as those between the Neandertals and Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
..This analysis thus provides convincing support that Neandertals and modern humans of North Africa, the Near East, and Europe differ considerably with respect to facial morphology. Moreover, Figure 1 shows that the North Africans and the Upper Paleolithic Europeans cannot be separated on the basis of their facial dimensions a finding supported by the univariate comparisons. Finally, the two individuals Dar-es-Soltanc 5 and Nazlet Khater, like Skhul5 and Qafzeh 6, clearly fall within the modern spectrum, at a clear distance from the Neandertals..
..The distribution with respect to PC II, which is largely determined by the frontal chord and arc as well as by the nasio-frontal angle (Table 5), is interesting. Almost all of the sub-Saharan individuals lie within the upper, positive area. Remarkably, all of the Upper Paleolithic Europeans do also. With the exception of Dar-es-Soltane 5, however, all of the North Africans lie within the lower, negative half. Qafzeh 6, Skhul5 and Nazlet Khater also fall in this latter group. Admittedly it is not easy to interpret the positions of Dar-es-Soltane 5 and the Upper Paleolithic Europeans within the spectrum of sub-Saharan finds, but it might show that there is a great overlap between the modern samples from Africa, Europe and West Asia with regard to these frontal features.
The third analysis paid special attention to several of the dimensions and angles of the vault and face which are often used to characterize the Negroid cranial form (Coon, 1965; De I’illiers, 1968; Tobias, 1974). Table 6 shows that seven of the nine variables load high for PC I, the most relevant of which describe the cranial length, the facial height, and the nasal breadth. The two remaining variables are angles of the Basion-Nasion-Bregma triangle, for which there are significant differences between the samples from Northern and sub-Saharan Africa.
The sixth and last of the Principal component analyses, based upon ten variables of the vault and face is the first multivariate comparison of the ca. 20,000-25,000 year old hominid from Wadi Kubbaniya (Table 9). The selection of measurements was constrained by the relevant measurements which were available for this hominid. Figure 6 clearly shows its position among modern humans with the closest relations being to the later Upper Pleistocene North Africans and Upper Paleolithic Europeans. PC1 is mainly determined by the length of the vault, the height of the upper face, orbit, and nasal aperture (for further details see Table 9). This analysis also underscores the difficulties in distinguishing the Northern and Sub-Saharan specimens both from one another and from the Upper Paleolithic Europeans.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic