...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Origin of modern day Berbers speakers--just facts, no dogma inspired fiction
» 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] @Dead See Irhoud's facial affinity to Neanderthals in that Harvati and Hublin paper I referenced: [QUOTE]The Procrustes distances among population mean configurations were calculated and reported in Table 12.5. [b]Irhoud 1 was closest to the mean recent Australian configuration (PD = 0.078) and to the mean Upper Paleolithic European configuration (PD = 0.085). Irhoud 1 showed a rather large distance to Dar es-Soltan II-5 (PD = 0.106).[/b][/QUOTE]Facially speaking, the top 3 pops Jebel Irhoud I is closest to are Australians, UP Europeans, and recent Africans, in that order. I'm sure there are "archaic traits" here and there on the specimen, but I don't regard those as evidence of archaic human introgressions. Also see the Iberomaurusian distance to various populations in table 12.5 (the best table for this type of 3D analysis). The shortest distance to the European UP sample are recent Africans and Iberomaurusians, who are all equidistant to one another (all three have a distance of 0.049 to each other). You're right, the Epipalaeolithic Maghrebi are platyrrhine on average, but in multivariate analysis this seems to have little influence. The Maghrebi populations are certainly closer to UP Europeans than UP Levantines seem to have been. The Ohalo II sample in this paper has a PD distance to UP Europeans of 0.093, which is comparatively much more distant compared to the aforementioned Iberomaurusian value of 0.049. [/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