|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 22, 2005 0:29:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on Mar 22, 2005 0:33:05 GMT -5
Excellent map  Notice how the Ancient Egyptian group is overwhelmingly Caucasian. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 22, 2005 3:52:44 GMT -5
Darn, I was really hoping to see Aethiopids represented. Closest thing is Kenya, but that's Bantu country for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 22, 2005 5:36:38 GMT -5
Darn, I was really hoping to see Aethiopids represented. Closest thing is Kenya, but that's Bantu country for the most part. Nothing impressive about that and that map wasn't created by W.W. Howells from whom the population samples came from. Thats just Nu-Sapiens impressing his own interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 22, 2005 10:52:56 GMT -5
Nothing impressive about that and that map wasn't created by W.W. Howells from whom the population samples came from. Thats just Nu-Sapiens impressing his own interpretation. Wrong. All I did was visualize the output of Dienekes' statistical methods, which were mathematically derived from Howell's data (Dienekes explained his methods in full). I added no inferences or data. I only was make pie charts and plot them on a map. In some of my other maps, I do play with data and add my own interpretations and assumptions, but not on this one. And about Egyptians, perhaps they would be their own group at a different number of clusters. But since they were grouped with Europeans at k=14 (the best fit predicted by Bayesian method), they share quite a bit of affinity with that region relative to Subsaharan Africa, apparently. I was surprised by that, myself. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 23, 2005 20:44:09 GMT -5
And about Egyptians, perhaps they would be their own group at a different number of clusters. But since they were grouped with Europeans at k=14 (the best fit predicted by Bayesian method), they share quite a bit of affinity with that region relative to Subsaharan Africa, apparently. I was surprised by that, myself. Do you mean Ethiopians? Cause that's what I really wanted to know so as to have some leverage against TopDog's elongated African thesis.  |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 26, 2005 8:52:33 GMT -5
Do you mean Ethiopians? Cause that's what I really wanted to know so as to have some leverage against TopDog's elongated African thesis. Mike, I respect you as poster but give it up, Ethiopians don't group with 'Caucasoids' morphologically nor genetically. |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 26, 2005 21:11:43 GMT -5
I never said they grouped with Caucasians, only that they do have Caucasian blood and that is has affected their skeleton. It makes sense to me. If the Hamites did come into the Horn of Africa from southern Arabia, they would've had to have hybridized with the native Congoids to some degree, unless you believe the language transfer happened without mixing, which I find unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 26, 2005 22:19:04 GMT -5
Woah, thanks for the great map, human2.
I like how it gives Cushitic its own area, suggesting an intermediate overlap with the Caucasoid and Negoid races that formed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 27, 2005 6:38:21 GMT -5
Woah, thanks for the great map, human2. I like how it gives Cushitic its own area, suggesting an intermediate overlap with the Caucasoid and Negoid races that formed it. Oromo and Somalis are well over 80-85% African in origin, speak Cushitic languages and you're postulating they were formed by Caucasoids and Negroids? |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 27, 2005 7:40:55 GMT -5
Well, actually, not all of them, just a good number. I've seen many a negroid Cushitic speaker and I don't want to belittle their negroid half. I'm talking about the ones with the most typical intermediate Aethiopid looks, the ones who show Middle Eastern phenotypes, that of the original Cushites from southern Arabia.
Well, whatever the case may be, if you think the Aethiopids are just an elongated offshoot of the Negroid race, you're kidding yourself, G. BECAUSE NOBODY BELIEVES YOU! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Okay, I'm done. Have a happy Easter. Or early Kwanzaa... or whatever you crazy Negroes celebrate. Ciao.
|
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Mar 27, 2005 14:49:40 GMT -5
As for Ethiopians, this map below would suggest that craniometrically, they are influenced by the "Caucasoid" sphere: Human2, that's an interesting map. What is it based upon? Is it a reintepretation of the same data I used to make the pie chart map? |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Mar 28, 2005 9:16:25 GMT -5
Well, actually, not all of them, just a good number. I've seen many a negroid Cushitic speaker and I don't want to belittle their negroid half. I'm talking about the ones with the most typical intermediate Aethiopid looks, the ones who show Middle Eastern phenotypes, that of the original Cushites from southern Arabia. No Cushites came from Arabia, if they did, why aren't they still there? All Cushitic speaking populations are found in Africa, except for those who occasionally migrate across the Red Sea. I'm not the only one who believes in 'Elongated' types in Africa. I found this on another board: ....inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height.............The relatively long noses of East Africa become explicable then when one realizes that much of the area is extremely dry for parts of the year.C. Loring Brace Nonracial Approach Towards Human Diversity Cited from The Concept of Race Edited by Ashley Montagu The Free Press p. 135-136, 138 |
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on Mar 28, 2005 14:59:30 GMT -5
The Cushites of Arabia are still there, they've just been absorbed into the Semitic-speaking population just as the ones in Africa were hypothetically absorbed by black types. Almost every son of Cush listed in the biblical account (the Table of Nations) lived in Arabia for crying out loud. I didn't write it. The Hebrews did. Maybe the Hebrews were lying rascals, I don't know. Hey, maybe an elongated African type does exist, I don't know, I just find it hard to believe a dry environment, which can certainly change the nasal area as Loring Brace notes, would lend the same Caucasian look to the skull in a short amount of time. Because remember, whatever the case may be, East Africa is only recently Negroid or Aethiopid. It was before inhabited by Khoisan folk, I believe. Unless you have reason to believe this is untrue. I'm just relaying what I've heard. I just think it's more likely that a type similar to Nilotes entered East Africa, hybridized with the Khoisan living there maybe (or perhaps drove them out), and then absorbed a small, but substantial number of migrating Hamitic people from southern Arabia. This is the traditional approach, so don't lambast me for relaying it. Don't kill the messenger, take your crusade to the textbook publishers, the encyclopedia researchers, and the lexicographers if you must. |
|
|
|
Post by topdog on Apr 15, 2005 6:36:17 GMT -5
Excellent map Notice how the Ancient Egyptian group is overwhelmingly Caucasian. The Egyptian series in Howells' database isn't even a typical Egyptian series Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania. S.R. Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK. The level of morphological variation within a population is the result of factors such as population expansion and movement. Traditionally Egyptologists have considered ancient Egypt to have a homogeneous population, with state formation occurring as a result of local processes without influence from migration. This paper tests this hypothesis by investigating the extent of biological relationships within a series of temporally successive Egyptian skeletal samples. Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed. The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples. The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series.This research was funded by the Wellcome Trust (Bioarchaeology Panel), Durham University (Addison-Wheeler Fellowship) and by University of Southampton.  |
|
