...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
what do you think of these Amarna pop affiliator results by Keita et al. ?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [b]they create this artificial divide of North Africans being totally separate from a monolithic "Sub-Saharan" category[/b] i.e. (genetic true negro). It's even come to the point that they will even white-wash the appearance of ancient Egyptians in their reconstructions. Antalas is just par-exemplar of this fallacious idiocy. [/QUOTE]Seems like Anthropologists do not agree with you : [QUOTE] [b]We recognized five major modern dental populations: Western Eurasia (including North Africa and India), sub-Saharan Africa,[/b] Sino-America, SundaPacific, and Sahul-Pacific. These divisions have substantial correspondence with linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and ethnographic classifications. [/QUOTE]Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 28 [QUOTE] Three broad geographic based groups are evident: [b](1) Europe/Mediterranean (Europe, West Asia, North Africa)[/b] , (2) Northeast Asia/New World (South Siberia, China-Mongolia, Northeast Asia, American Arctic, North and South Native Americans), and (3) Australia/Oceania (Southeast Asia, Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Polynesia). These groupings, alone, support the utility of categorization at a broad, that is, geographic, level [e.g., Mongoloid Dental Complex (Hanihara 1968) and Sinodonty characterize the second grouping]. Moreover, the Southeast Asian sample, as would be expected given known population history, is intermediate between the latter two groups. [b]The sub-Saharan sample is divergent from all others[/b] , though it is more or less equidistant between Europe/Mediterranean and Australia/Oceania. [/QUOTE]Joel D. Irish, Anthropological perspectives on Tooth Morphology, pp. 279 Here Again : [QUOTE] [b]As seen in Figure 2, there is an obvious separation of sub-saharan and north african samples, yet apparent homogeneity within regions - particularly North Africa.[/b] [b]These findings are supported by previous affinity estimates based on African genetic, skeletal, dermatoglyphic, anthropometric, linguistic, and cultural data[/b] (see Mourant 1954, 1983; Greenberg 1959, 1966; Murdock 1959; Hiernaux 1975; Nurse et al, 1985; Sanchez-Mazas et al, 1986; Excoffier et al, 1987; Roychoudhury and Nei 1988; Howells 1989; Froment, 1992a,b; Franciscus 1995; Holliday 1995; among others). [/QUOTE]J.D. Irish, Dental morphological affinities of late pleistocene through recent sub-saharan and north african peoples, 1998 [/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