Post by djoser-xyyman on Jun 27, 2014 15:11:38 GMT -5
While researching these pre-Columbian African skeleton I came across this …
Based upon Osteocranial data it seemed like the slaves were more admixed with Euroepans than modern AFRAMS which was unexpected. The researchers instead expected to see a closer affinity with modern Africans which was not the case.
-----------
Osteology of a Slave Burial Population From Barbados, West
lndies
ROBERT 5.
Laboratory analysis resolved any uncertainties concerning the racial affiliation of the skeletons. All the remains are of Blacks, based on universally flat nasal sills and slight subnasal grooves, wide nasal apertures, broad foreheads, wide interorbital regions, and characteristic alveolar prognathism.
This population constitutes not only the largest excavated group of African and African- descended slaves, but perhaps the earliest.
The existing literature on slave osteology is very sparse. There are two straightforward descriptions of small samples, one of undocumented Blacks from the Virgin Islands (Dailey, 1974), and one of presumed slaves from Colonial Williamsburg (Hudgins, 1977). Ubelaker and Angel (1976) described two isolated probable slaves of UNKNOWN DATE from the Virgin Islands, and the remains of two antebellum Black individuals, discovered in coastal Georgia, were analyzed by Thomas et al. (1977).
Aside from Higman’s (1979) analysis of slave stature and growth from historical data, we can still repeat Dailey’s (1974:ll) comment that “we know virtually nothing about the stature, diseases and nonmetrical variations of black populations during the slave period.” These limitations led Saksena (1974) to use a collage of modern coastal West African skeletal samples as representatives of the ancestral stock, and to compare them to American Blacks and Whites along an osteometric continuum.
===
May be someone should contact the Smithsonian to get the results. After all, it is gone past 40years. Beyoku?
Based upon Osteocranial data it seemed like the slaves were more admixed with Euroepans than modern AFRAMS which was unexpected. The researchers instead expected to see a closer affinity with modern Africans which was not the case.
-----------
Osteology of a Slave Burial Population From Barbados, West
lndies
ROBERT 5.
Laboratory analysis resolved any uncertainties concerning the racial affiliation of the skeletons. All the remains are of Blacks, based on universally flat nasal sills and slight subnasal grooves, wide nasal apertures, broad foreheads, wide interorbital regions, and characteristic alveolar prognathism.
This population constitutes not only the largest excavated group of African and African- descended slaves, but perhaps the earliest.
The existing literature on slave osteology is very sparse. There are two straightforward descriptions of small samples, one of undocumented Blacks from the Virgin Islands (Dailey, 1974), and one of presumed slaves from Colonial Williamsburg (Hudgins, 1977). Ubelaker and Angel (1976) described two isolated probable slaves of UNKNOWN DATE from the Virgin Islands, and the remains of two antebellum Black individuals, discovered in coastal Georgia, were analyzed by Thomas et al. (1977).
Aside from Higman’s (1979) analysis of slave stature and growth from historical data, we can still repeat Dailey’s (1974:ll) comment that “we know virtually nothing about the stature, diseases and nonmetrical variations of black populations during the slave period.” These limitations led Saksena (1974) to use a collage of modern coastal West African skeletal samples as representatives of the ancestral stock, and to compare them to American Blacks and Whites along an osteometric continuum.
===
May be someone should contact the Smithsonian to get the results. After all, it is gone past 40years. Beyoku?