...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
The Mechta-Afalou/Mechtoids redux thread
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [IMG]http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/7140/10yl24mcopyph9.jpg[/IMG] Speaking of which—with regards to the Afalou‘s being “neither Negroid or San”, on the other hand, from Groves,... [i][b]factor 2 represents the **sub-Saharan/Caucasoid** contrast[/b]. The [b]Caucasoid populations[/b] (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) [b]score positively on factor 2[/b], the [b]sub-Saharan[/b] Teita [b]score negatively[/b]. The [b]modern Dogon[/b] (Southern Mali) samples [b]are intermediate[/b]. The fossil Nubians score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is [b]especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively[/b], if only slightly; it [b]occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon[/b].[/i] Recap, [from previous Egyptsearch & blog notes]: So [as already noted yet again], a Maghrebian specimen, namely the Afalou specimens, occupy the same position as the "modern Dogon" [although a Dogon male scores positively], which is the "intermediary" position? Well, we know what the modern Dogon generally look like...but if anything, at the least, this is [b]yet indication that even the Maghrebian series don't all converge into a single cranio-morphometric "type"[/b]. [Note: Norse, Egypt, Dogon and Teita are supposed to be relatively modern examples from Howells' database — 1973] [i]The discriminant analysis shows that the [b]Nubian scatter is so wide[/b] that it is [b]some of the Nubian males, rather than any of the Maghrebian ones, that are Cromagnon males’[/b] nearest neighbors. The [b]nearest neighbour[/b] of the Cromagnon females, however, is the [b]sole[/b] Afalou female.[/i] - Groves What seems to be at work here? It looks to be what I call the "Spanish crania" syndrome: [i]"race classification of all individuals in this sample using the Forensic Data Bank option. Of the 95 individuals, [b]42[/b] (44 percent) [b]were classified as white, 35 percent as black, 9 percent as Hispanic, 4 percent as Japanese, 4 percent as American Indian, and the remaining three individuals as Chinese and Vietnamese[/b]"[/i] - Ubelaker et al., Application of Forensic Discriminant Functions to a Spanish Cranial Sample, 2002. The above pre-historic "Nubian" crania display a phenomenon not uninterestingly distinct from their more modern counterparts: [i]“If Fordisc 2.0 is revealing genetic admixture of Late Period Dynastic Egypt and Meroitic Nubia, [b]then one must also consider these ancient Meroitic Nubians to be part of Hungarian, part Easter Islander, part Norse, and part Australian Aborigine, with smaller contributions from the Ainu, Teita, Zulu, Santa Cruz, Andaman Islands, Arikara, Ayatal, and Hokkaido populations[/b]. In fact, all human groups are essentially heterogeneous, including samples within Fordisc 2.0. Using Fst heritability tests, Relethford (1994) demonstrated that Howells’s cranial samples exhibit far more variation within than between skeletal series. There is no reason to assume that the heterogeneity of the Late Period Dynastic Egyptian population exceeds that characterizing our Nubian sample. This heterogeneity may also characterize the populations in the Forensic Data Bank; Fordisc 2.0 [b]classified the Meroitic Nubians not as either all black or all white but as black, white, Hispanic, Chinese, Japanese, and Native American.[/b]”[/i] - Williams et al. 2005 Such is the result of preconceived attempts to force superficial population variations to undeviating non-overlapping socio-ethnic or "racial" types. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3