...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Response Against Great Zimbabwe Being Black
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by BrandonP: [qb] Sorry to contradict you here, but where did you read that AE group with stereotypically "sub-Saharan" (i.e. West or Central African) populations in nonmetric analyses? The Hanihara papers made it look like they and Kushites grouped with Europeans rather than SSA. Now, I personally don't interpret those results as showing that Egypto-Nubian populations were necessarily "Caucasoid" or "West Eurasian" (I don't think I need to go into how I personally interpret such results), but it wouldn't be right to say they grouped with West/Central African populations instead. [/qb][/QUOTE]I was referring to the 1976 Berry & Berry study which [URL=https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.2307/3171969]Keita (1993) cited[/URL]: [i] Berry et al (1967) showed that numerous Egyptian series from different regions and epochs usually showed greater affinity to one another than to Sudanese, Palestinian (Lachish), and West African (Ashanti) series. Notably missing from their study were the A, C, X, and Meroitic Nubian groups. Numerous inconsistencies were apparent in that successive regional populations sometimes had less affinity to one another than to some from greatly different time periods and regions. For example, early Nakada predynastic crania had less affinity with late Nakada series than the even earlier predynastic Badari did with the late dynastic northern Gizeh groups! [b]Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context, the affinity is with the Africans.[/b] The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have "donated" people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988).[/i] As for Hanihara's study, could you specify which one? Because if you recall I cited his 2003 study in my thread [URL=http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=010501;p=1]here[/URL] showing that according to his PCO data, Egyptians and other North Africans are in an intermediate position between Sub-Saharans and Eurasians. Either way they are NOT as Antalas wishes grouped entirely with Eurasians but form a continuity of sorts with Sub-Saharans for the obvious reason that North Africans are also Africans. [/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