What ethnicity do you think the owners of each of these three skulls belonged to? A little question for amateur anthropologists, just out out interest. No googling, please!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
The skull on the left is from Predynastic Egypt and i suspect the skull on the far right is from Northern Sudan. I am unsure about the ethnicity of the skull in the middle.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
Did you mean actual ethnicity, or did you really mean "what do you think was the skin color of the owners of these skulls while living, where they Black or 'White' or Other"
Posted by _Mouse (Member # 6729) on :
The skull on the far right looks like its missing something in the frontal region
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Ethnicity/race whatever you think...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes it doesn't matter since they were all your caca-soid kinsmen weren't they? LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: The skull on the left is from Predynastic Egypt and i suspect the skull on the far right is from Northern Sudan. I am unsure about the ethnicity of the skull in the middle.
Actually the skull looks like one of those presented a few years ago here discovered in Niger. The other two look familiar but I forgot. The right might be Sudanese but I don't know about the one in the middle.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Interesting...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the skulls according to conventional estimates are in order as follows
Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongolid
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Very interesting indeed...
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Very not interesting indeed
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. Not as interesting as DaDum1's incessant denial and evasion of the FACTS.
He wants to talk about skulls. Then he he needs to discuss all this...
The Cambridge History of Africa (Hardcover) by J. D. Fage (Editor) Cambridge University Press (March 30, 1979) p.69 Skeletal remains from the Kenya Rift previously considered as 'Afro-Mediterranean' or 'Caucasoid' have now been shown to group with African Negro samples. They date within the first millennium BC and, on physical characteristics, it is suggested that they may be of proto-Nilotic stock. But it is necessary to also make comparisons with Cushitic speakers, since burials found recently in association with a Kenya Capsian-like industry from Lake Besaka in the Ethiopian Rift, dating probably to c. 5000 BC, also show negroid features, and linguistic evidence indicates long history for Cushitic in Ethiopia.
"Claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong,.." - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa (1975) p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.
The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding.
The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
quote:Originally posted by DaHotip101: Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial features were more in line with the caucasoid...
Lest we think you're a complete and utter moron... There is nothing "unusual" about Tut's elongated skull. This is a trait known as hyper-dolicocephaly and is in fact quite common among BLACK Africans including those in Sub-Saharan regions.
The cranial shape displayed by the New Kingdom royal mummies is most commonly found among inhabitants of the Nile and the south Sahara. The skull of Thutmose IV shows some peculiarities regarding the sagittal contour and occiput in the lateral view (profile).
As far as his facial features are concerned here is what one expert said of Tut's skull who helped with the National Geographic reconstruction.
Dr Susan Anton: I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions)...
A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins..
Ausar tells her about the importance of considering African phenotypic diversity since many anthropologists have already confirmed about the tremendous diversity of facial features in Sub-Sahara alone and that these traits include hyper-dolicocephaly and alveolar prognathism which is Tut's and the other 18th dynasty's "buck-teeth".
To which Dr. Anton answered: Yes this is true and this is precisely why I felt (although I did not know where the individual was from) that this was an individual of African ancestry, and why I so stated.
Alveolar prognathism was taken into account (at least by me, I can't speak for the other groups) and is another part of the reason for my estimation of African ancestry in this individual. You should recall that all the other groups that worked on this individual knew that this was Tut's skull. We did not know either who this was particularly or if it was a forensic case or an archaeological case (I worked from the CT reconstruction of the skull from which it is impossible to infer such.
People took the Egyptian for a caucasoid and the Briton for a negroid, which I find a bit interesting.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
Thank you for the results. I was certain the left skull was Predynastic Egyptian, although I was incorrect on the ethnicity of the second and third skull.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: Thank you for the results. I was certain the left skull was Predynastic Egyptian, although I was incorrect on the ethnicity of the second and third skull.
what were the clues that the skull on left is Predynastic Egyptian?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
What the hell?
You can't tell ethnicity from a skull. Try looking at the populations Egyptians cluster with instead of layman anthroplogy. The FACT of the matter is that YOU have no actual knowledge of research articles. So when we bring them up, naturally you go off in rants totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Most recently seen at Kalonji's thread where he debunked your bullshit about a dynastic race using osteological studies. You ignored this and started posting irrlevancies on art as if they supported your position over actual skeletal analysis. You don't even read the studies presented to you because you want to live in your fantasy la la land of Armenoid Caucasoids inhabiting Egypt. You're a clown
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: Thank you for the results. I was certain the left skull was Predynastic Egyptian, although I was incorrect on the ethnicity of the second and third skull.
what were the clues that the skull on left is Predynastic Egyptian?
There were no clues. I recall seeing that skull from a different angle a long time ago.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What the hell?
You can't tell ethnicity from a skull. Try looking at the populations Egyptians cluster with instead of layman anthroplogy. The FACT of the matter is that YOU have no actual knowledge of research articles. So when we bring them up, naturally you go off in rants totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Most recently seen at Kalonji's thread where he debunked your bullshit about a dynastic race using osteological studies. You ignored this and started posting irrlevancies on art as if they supported your position over actual skeletal analysis. You don't even read the studies presented to you because you want to live in your fantasy la la land of Armenoid Caucasoids inhabiting Egypt. You're a clown
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation by Barry Kemp, Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
quote:Originally posted by DaHotip101: Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial features were more in line with the caucasoid...
Lest we think you're a complete and utter moron... There is nothing "unusual" about Tut's elongated skull. This is a trait known as hyper-dolicocephaly and is in fact quite common among BLACK Africans including those in Sub-Saharan regions.
As far as his facial features are concerned here is what one expert said of Tut's skull who helped with the National Geographic reconstruction.
Dr Susan Anton: I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions)...
A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins..
Ausar tells her about the importance of considering African phenotypic diversity since many anthropologists have already confirmed about the tremendous diversity of facial features in Sub-Sahara alone and that these traits include hyper-dolicocephaly and alveolar prognathism which is Tut's and the other 18th dynasty's "buck-teeth".
To which Dr. Anton answered: Yes this is true and this is precisely why I felt (although I did not know where the individual was from) that this was an individual of African ancestry, and why I so stated.
Alveolar prognathism was taken into account (at least by me, I can't speak for the other groups) and is another part of the reason for my estimation of African ancestry in this individual. You should recall that all the other groups that worked on this individual knew that this was Tut's skull. We did not know either who this was particularly or if it was a forensic case or an archaeological case (I worked from the CT reconstruction of the skull from which it is impossible to infer such.
Tut's parents:
KV 55 (Akhenaten) reconstruction
KV 35 Younger Lady (Akhenaten's sister) reconstruction
The cranial shape displayed by the New Kingdom royal mummies is most commonly found among inhabitants of the Nile and the south Sahara. The skull of Thutmose IV shows some peculiarities regarding the sagittal contour and occiput in the lateral view (profile). Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
ups...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Djehuti The KV35 mummy reconstruction is accurate except for the over-large lips (the mouth area is damaged anyway) which do not match the fine features. You can't work out lip shape from skulls alone. The mummy's profile (which has no prognathism) matches the Berlin 'Nefertiti' perfectly (allowing for the squashed nose tip and the open jaw). In other words it matches an object which afrocentrists wish was fake but which is perfectly authentic according to Egyptologists who actually know anything. This is not what southern Nilotics look like....
You also don't tend to get southern nilotics with long flowing hair such as the elder lady mummy from the same tomb (queen Tiye) demonstrated:
Show me a negro with hair like Queen Tiye's. I suspect that if you showed that image to anyone who did not know better and said it was a Danish bog mummy, they would have no reason to doubt you. They would certainly never confuse it for the mortal remains of a negro.
Posted by ANGUISH_OF_BEANS_AND_DODO (Member # 6729) on :
Hahaha Ha Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Lol Rahotep... do you even know the methods they used to reconstruct the mummy? If you do, then tell me why they were flawed. Lets not forget...
quote:You also don't tend to get southern nilotics with long flowing hair such as the elder lady mummy from the same tomb (queen Tiye) demonstrated:
Ironically, the very same women who claimed that Egyptian hair was "Caucasoid" is the same lady who believes that the reconstruction is a life like reconstruction. In any event, recall Rahotep's statement here:
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: If you want to meet black pirates it's a simple matter of going on a yachting holiday anywhere near the Somali coast.
So he basically admits the Somali are "blacks". And the ancient Egyptian hair is no different from Somali hair.
"Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However, this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "woolly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa." --(S. O. Y. Keita. (1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaWhoreisDumb101: Djehuti The KV35 mummy reconstruction is accurate except for the over-large lips (the mouth area is damaged anyway) which do not match the fine features. You can't work out lip shape from skulls alone. The mummy's profile (which has no prognathism) matches the Berlin 'Nefertiti' perfectly (allowing for the squashed nose tip and the open jaw). In other words it matches an object which afrocentrists wish was fake but which is perfectly authentic according to Egyptologists who actually know anything. This is not what southern Nilotics look like....
Do you have a memory problem, or are you just dumb??!
First of all, The KV 35 Younger Lady as proven by recent DNA tests is NOT and I repeat again NOT Nefertiti but a full-blooded sister of KV 55 i.e. Akhenaten!! So basing the reconstruction on the Nefertiti bust is null and void!
Second of all, as discussed before soft tissue parts like tip of the nose and lips can only be guessed at. The soft tissue features of the KV 35 Younger Lady was based on actual Egyptians who live around the area of the Valley of the Kings i.e. Luxor!! Since you are either unaware or in total denial that many modern Egyptians especially in the very areas of the ancient 'Thebald' are still BLACK, but of course you prefer the Delta types of foreign ancestry!
quote:You also don't tend to get southern nilotics with long flowing hair such as the elder lady mummy from the same tomb (queen Tiye) demonstrated:
First of all, do you really expect the hair of a several millennia old dried corpse to remain the same both in texture and color, never mind the chemical effect of any embalming fluids used??!
Second of all, you speak of southern Nilotic people but what of northern ones??
As Calabooz has explained wavy hair is not unusual for some black Africans though it is not the thin kind found among so-called "caucasians" but thick and wooly variety as is common among Egyptian hair.
By the way here is what studies say about the Elder Lady's skull:
"The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism." Harris & Wente X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (1980)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Up...
Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
Rahotep is Djehuti, starting again with his twenty nick's!
Is he also Ramusissi?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ YOU must be Rahotep for repeating the same lie over and over again like a brain-damaged idiot. How many times must I say that I do NOT go by different usernames let alone trolls.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
