...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: [b]If this is an allusion to limb proportions[/b], then it is rather odd that the San fall right within the tropical African group[/QUOTE]Were you in the know, you would have known that the description below the dendrogram is inconsistent with it being about limb proportions. You probably thought you were making an astute observation, but it only shows that you're in denial and desperately leeching onto a sinking ship. [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: On the other hand, if it is regarding a body shape measure, well Holliday himself has been on the record, [b]pointing to the outlier orientation of the pygmies where body linearity was concerned.[/b][/QUOTE]Other than your silly and obsolete observation about San limb data, your comment about pygmies doesn't make sense either. Pygmies have always clustered in the vicinity of Ancient Egyptians in Holiday's work. There is nothing out of the ordinary about their position in this dendrogram. You're just disgruntled now that hard data from the paper shows how much your belief in the tropical nature of the bodyplans of the Ibero-Maurusians is exactly that--an emotion based delusion. [QUOTE] Originally posted by The Explorer: I have already gone through Trenton's "Body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample", but subsequently [b]lost the paper[/b] when my computer crashed earlier in the year.[/QUOTE]Please inform us about this paper you're referring to. What are the full specifics of the paper? Publication date, journal, etc. [QUOTE]Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that Natufian and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account; take for instance, the following:[/QUOTE]Other than the fact that it doesn't bespeak sense to attempt to juxtapose bodyplan related data with (isolated) cranio-metric data, you're not being truthful. What you're not telling everyone is that the Afalou sample included individuals with brachycephaly, and I quote: ''[i]But brachycephalism was not an unknown characteristic in Algeria in the Epipalaeolithic period, for a small number of brachycephalic individuals have been found at Afalou and Columnata[/i]'' --Physical Anthropology of European Populations, 1980, p259 The same can be said of your other comparisons; you're comparing population averages with a single specimen, without having taken into account whether the Ohalo falls within the range of the Ibero-Maurusian group. In addition, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, as you're clumsily presenting your excerpts as 'Natufian vs Ibero-Maurusian', even though the Ohalo II specimen isn't even Natufian. Brings to mind your earlier confused misrepresentation of nasal breadth data as ''nasal index''. [/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