...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Stupid Euro and misunderstanding Howells
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Super car: [QB] People, notice how these divergent discussions are actually being used by ginney pussy as a pretext to cowardly evaporate, and hide behind its inability to address the issues put forth. Super car: You never understand what is actually being said in the first place, much less quote properly; it is all a figment of your imagination. Despite the obvious complete flaws in the study, not to mention the out dated use of defunct fraudulent terms, it was said [i]"...less Negroid than Bantu..."[/i]. Of course, nobody else but ginney clown reads this as "not Negroid". Also, Among other serious flaws, which were shown here time and again, such as "[i]Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.[/i]" - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski, and "[i]We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'[/i]" - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al., where were the other East Africans , i.e., the Cushitic and Nilotic groups represented in Howell's study? Last, but not least... Topdog: 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: [b]robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.[/b] 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,[b] while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.[/b] What does all of this mean dumb Euro? -------- No answer, eh! The words too difficult to understand? [IMG]http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/smile.gif[/IMG] I don't see any answers to the specifics herein yet! [/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