|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 25, 2010 0:31:54 GMT -5
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1249897/pdf/janat00629-0003.pdfThis study is old and very typological in its approach and conclusions[suggesting that the Dynastic Egyptians were not native Egyptians] but it terms of raw data it would seem to support the notion that modern Egyptians are craniometrically closer to blacks than to Europeans despite change over thousands of years. EDIT: It should be pointed out that the modern Egyptian sample being used here for comparison are Copts. I encourage all to read this study and let me know what they think of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on Apr 25, 2010 2:03:42 GMT -5
Junk Science: First this paper tries to define a "True Negro" pure "Arab" and distinctive European, and then attempts to compare Modern, Dynastic, and Pre-Dynastic Egyptians to it. Even going so far as to claim AE are a completely "distinctive" race in some categories. As I suspected they took the mean average.
However when you look at the individual skeletal analysis on the very last page, you will notice that each skeletal is considerably diverse from the next on an individual basis that is. Which only goes to prove the diversity of Africans, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 25, 2010 6:35:09 GMT -5
Well the measurements don't lie, its the interpretation and model thats at fault.
|
|
|
|
Post by zarahan on Apr 25, 2010 12:54:38 GMT -5
Well the measurements don't lie, its the interpretation and model thats at fault. Good find and not surprising, knowing what we know now. Its conclusions parallel the most up to date limb proportion studies (2008), as well as limb studies going back to the 1950s, along with cranio studies comparing Egyptians with Nubians (2009). It findings basically track with Keita 1990, 1992 as well.   What is remarkable for this study is that it is at least somewhat candid about the data. You will find older studies sometimes more honest than those that were to follow - as the "Hamitic Hypothesis" and Aryan models took over the field. Keita had to go back and read old excavation reports to see how African data on the ground was mishandled. In several studies, skulls with so-called "negro" characteristics were routinely reclassified as "Mediterranean" or excluded altogether from final sampling batches. quote: ""Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." (S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48) |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Bass on Apr 25, 2010 13:30:16 GMT -5
Well the measurements don't lie, its the interpretation and model thats at fault. Good find and not surprising, knowing what we know now. Its conclusions parallel the most up to date limb proportion studies (2008), as well as limb studies going back to the 1950s, along with cranio studies comparing Egyptians with Nubians (2009). It findings basically track with Keita 1990, 1992 as well.   What is remarkable for this study is that it is at least somewhat candid about the data. You will find older studies sometimes more honest than those that were to follow - as the "Hamitic Hypothesis" and Aryan models took over the field. Keita had to go back and read old excavation reports to see how African data on the ground was mishandled. In several studies, skulls with so-called "negro" characteristics were routinely reclassified as "Mediterranean" or excluded altogether from final sampling batches. quote: ""Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers... "Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." (S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48) It is true indeed that even in old typological studies nuggets of the truth can be found if one reads those old studies thoroughly and interpret the data properly within a sound model from a multi-disciplinary perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Apr 25, 2010 16:41:34 GMT -5
Junk Science: First this paper tries to define a "True Negro" pure "Arab" and distinctive European, and then attempts to compare Modern, Dynastic, and Pre-Dynastic Egyptians to it. Even going so far as to claim AE are a completely "distinctive" race in some categories. As I suspected they took the mean average. However when you look at the individual skeletal analysis on the very last page, you will notice that each skeletal is considerably diverse from the next on an individual basis that is. Which only goes to prove the diversity of Africans, IMO. Tend to agree. According to Keita, you can dig easily compare an Kenyan skull and pass it off as a European one. A man was dug up dating back to 60,000 years ago. The craniology very represented that of a modern European. Funny thing is, Europeans didn't even exist 60,000 years ago. And yes, the changes in populations is due to adaptations. However one must understand that the adaptations that took place were because humans always had that potential for adaptation through mutation thus resulting in a wide diversity of colors and body types. The fact is the ability to change remains in all of us since we all descend from the same father and mother. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 26, 2010 7:48:08 GMT -5
I have being saying that . . since joining ES. Interpretation is where these Euros screw up. The conclusion section is always filled with their BS. Fortunately we can read and interpret . . now. We should NOT be re-gurgitating their conclusion. Examine the data ourselves. Look carefully how and who they sample. Of course they can still fabricate data. But it the spin where they mess up. And we are wiser now. We . . .at least, I can always out-think them. Well the measurements don't lie, its the interpretation and model thats at fault. |
|
|
|
Post by djoser-xyyman on Apr 26, 2010 9:35:04 GMT -5
The more I read up on this anthropological stuff certain things are becoming pretty clear.
“Caucasoid” features(lips, nose and hair) have been in Africa from the very beginning. There are 50kyo Caucasoid skulls found throughout Africa. At least East, West Central and North Africa. These Caucasoid skulls have been found in Kenya, Ethiopia, all over the Sahara and beyond.
If I am to take an educated guess these are the people that left Africa in the “second wave “and went into Europe and parts of the near East. Remnants of these people are found in Cro-magnon, Natufians, Russia (?) etc. These Africans have been classified as Cro-Magnon, Natufians, Mediterranean’s, negroid, etc.
Evidence point to the first wave was also made up of different type of people but also carrying Caucasoid features ie straight hair. These are the Australia group and South East Asians Islanders.
My guess is straight or curly hair IS the original hair type of humans. After all, most animals including other primates have straight hair. Almost all peoples outside of Africa have straight hair.
My second premise is that kinky or tightly curled hair is a recent adaption to the new environment ie jungles and forest dwellers. As the older groups moved into these new environments, from the plains, they developed these features. This can be seen with pygmies. And also clearly seen as CONVERGENT evolution in the Andamans and other groups in that area. These peoples are genetically far from Africans but they “look” African.
In addition the Africans maintained the capability to develop light skin. Since the early humanoids probably had light skin under the “fur: These genes don’t disappearbut simply gets turned off . Any logical person will conclude light skin is NOT a monopoly owned by Indo-Europeans.
Some Africans who remained developed light skin based upon their environment eg San. The UV map of the earth supports this idea. The north Asians also developed this feature albeit a different mechanism compared to Europeans.
So we have three different groups with light skin, North Asians, West Asians (Europeans) and Southern Africans (San). All using different mechanism to develop the needed light skin based upon the environmental need.
So men (and women) 150 years ago looked far different to men today.. . .including many Africans. In fact the evidence points to they probably looked different 10kya compared to now.
Up to 10kya most men looked like the Saharans.(Sahelians) Some of the older groups like the San and pygmies( and Andamans etc) already started adapting to their new environs. Most in people on continent remained black, why? Because they needed to.
My posit : The some so called Caucasoid features are indigenous Africa. Original humans, in Africa, first looked like that. The so called "true negro" feature is a new adaptation.
|
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on Apr 26, 2010 17:43:28 GMT -5
djoser- yes! People must realize that we are all just adaptations of African not different races.
|
|
