...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ethiopians, Somalis
» 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 Djehuti: [QB] ^ I think I remember seeing something like that in the subsequent reports on the Herto site, but I [b]recall the explanation (excuse) made that due to the young age of the remains conclusions cannot be made since the features are paedomorphic while adult features are more reliable[/b][/QUOTE]Must have been a rare report then, because there is almost no discussion on this child in the literature. Almost everything in the literature focuses on the adult Herto male. As a result the photographs of child's remains are far more difficult to find than the photographs of the adult male, even though both photographs come from the same paper. This is what it was like when I looked into this years ago. Situation might have improved in google, but I doubt it, because I know why it's like this in the first place. [QUOTE]What do you think of the craniometric data by language grouping from [URL=https://landofpunt.wordpress.com/]Parahu[/URL]? [/QUOTE]Although I have not read any of Froment's work, I like the [URL=https://i.imgur.com/twVgZsw.jpg]other Froment graph[/URL] better than this one. IMO the most successful morphometric studies have the first axis documenting most of the African vs Eurasian variations, as shown in the Froment graph I've just linked to. The Froment graph you've posted, on the other hand, has some populations cluster in a big group. IMO such analyses come out like that because they typically fail to capture most of the morphological variation. An example of the former is that Froment paper on Egyptians, while an example of the latter is Sereno. This is what Sereno et al have to say about most of their Palaeolithic samples forming a big cluster: [QUOTE] [IMG]https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=medium&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002995.g006[/IMG] Three of the loadings from the principal components analysis returned eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Table 7). Factor loadings transparently reflect anatomical or functional units. The first principal component appears to [b]most closely approximate a size vector[/b], but the loadings are not uniformly positive. The pattern of positive and negative loadings [b]for principal components 2 and 3 are not interpretable.[/b][/QUOTE]Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002995 In other words, the first axis relates to large cranial size. Palaeolithic populations are generally larger than holocene populations. We see mainly differentiation between large Upper Palaeolithics, and the even larger Aterians, but it's based on size. So, the Palaeolithic populatons for whatever reason were not properly differentiated according to their actual population affinity. If they were, the Kiffians (negroid) would have been apart from the Iberomaurusians (e.g. Taza I negroid, Taforalt & Afalou generally not negroid). Something similar (failure to capture some of the population affinity) may have happened with the Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo speakers in your Froment graph. [/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