...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Why lioness and kinfolk should refrain from imposing their sick ideologies on EA art
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB] [QUOTE] [i]'Falkenburger reopened the anthropological study of the Egyptian population in a recent work in which he discusses 1,787 male skulls varying in date from the old, Pre-Dynastic to our own day. He distinguishes four main groups' (p. 421). The sorting of the predynastic skulls into these four groups gives the following results for the whole predynastic period: [b]"36% negroid[/b], 33% Mediterranean, 11% Cro-Magnoid and [b]20% of individuals not falling in any of these groups but approximating either to the Cro-Magnoid or to the negroid'.[/b] [/i][/QUOTE]^ Ignoring the outdated typological approach, and using it for whatever relevance it has for this thread, one should be able to say that if AE artwork was [b]truly representative[/b], it should NOT be ethnically ambiguous, even without paint, in [i]at least[/i] 36% of all artwork. After seeing alot of AE art, I am positive this is not the case, but I can't prove it. What I CAN prove, and what is visible, is that for the Giza reserve heads, this is most definitely NOT true. [/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