...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by beyoku: This is bs. Take a look at Kennewick Man. See the genetic affinity of ancient Europeans who look like austrailoids. See the genetic affinity of Early native Americans that have cranial profiles similar to Africans and Melanesians.......hell look at all the Negrito diversity that is at the opposite end of the genetic spectrum from Africans. You are too caught up on cranial metrics and just linked data from 2011 before a lot of major sampling of ancient DNA occurred. Why don't you take a look at your caucasoid ancient Egyptians and look at their Autosomal profile ala DNA Tribes. I am not going to give you sources. You are going to have to learn about this on your own. Just start googling the genetic results of the said remains and then look at their reconstruction. Start with how your folks went Gaga over Kennewick Man and was shut down when his DNA was released. See how Afro loons were shut down when ancient American DNA was releaded of "negroid" looking remains. You ideas a part of the pre DNA old guard. [/QB][/QUOTE]The "Caucasoid" Kennewick Man thing was not based on any peer-review study though; the scientist who made those comments (James Chatters) made them in an anthropology news-letter: "presence of Caucasoid traits, [and] lack of definitive Native-American characteristics" ('Encounter with an Ancestor'. [i]Anthropology Newsletter[/i] 38(1):9–10), this was just his opinion from looking at the skull, not actually taking any measurements. Jantz & Owsley (2001) who published one of the earliest craniometric analyses on early Holocene crania from North America, concluded they show "no similarity to morphometric pattern of recent American Indians". However, 2 years later they criticized their own study (see below); this was the same point I raised earlier in this thread about using too few craniometric measurements. Jantz & Owsley (2001) only used 22 measurements out of 57 (Howells, 1973, 1989, 1995). Unfortunately they didn't re-measure early Holocene crania using more dimensions/variables, but if they did they would have found modern Native Americans are closest to early Holocene North American crania. This is because Jantz and Owsley (2003) demonstrated this for Upper Palaeolithic European crania (i.e closest to Norse or Hungarians), when using 55 measurements: "[T]hose [b]skulls expressing Norse affinity are the most complete and have the highest number of measurements (x̄ = 50.8)[/b], while those expressing affinity to African populations (Bushman or Zulu) are the most incomplete, averaging just 16.8 measurements per skull. Use of highly incomplete or reconstructed crania may not yield a good estimate of their morphometric affinities. [b]When one considers only those crania with 40 or more measurements, a majority express European affinity[/b]... To examine this idea further, we use the eight Upper Paleolithic crania available from the test series of Howells (1995), all of which are complete. [b]Our analysis of these eight, based on 55 measurements, is presented in Table 1. Using raw measurements, 6 of 8 express an affinity to Norse."[/b] - Jantz, R.L. and D.W. Owsley, (2003). 'Reply to van Vark et al.: Is European Upper Paleolithic cranial morphology a useful analogy for early Americans?', Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 121:185-188 [/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