...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Palo-Americans and their descendants
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: [QB] [QUOTE]I will address this issue now. As noted previously the anthropological literature make it clear the ancient Europeans are related to the San not Australians. [/QUOTE]Where is this anthropological data? Where are the post OOA genes found in Europeans? Meanwhile......... They most closely resembled Oceanic populations and not Khoisan, sorry kid. [IMG]http://i35.tinypic.com/2u76a05.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i37.tinypic.com/r75aoo.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i33.tinypic.com/34h848p.png[/IMG] Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins http://www.nycep.org/nmg/pdf/26.pdf Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns. Hofmeyr is contemporaneous with later Eurasian Neandertals, but it clearly does not evince the cranial and mandibular apomorphies that define that clade (28). This is not surprising, given its geographic location. Although Hofmeyr is similar in size to Eurasian UP crania, it differs from them in other respects (such as its broad nose and continuous supraorbital tori). In order to assess the phenetic affinities of Hofmeyr to penecontemporaneous Eurasian UP and recent humans, we conducted multivariate morphometric analyses of 3D landmark coordinates and linear measurements of crania representing these populations. We digitized 19 3D coordinates of landmarks that represent as fully as possible the currently preserved anatomy of the Hofmeyr skull (table S4). These were compared with homologous data for recent human samples from five broad geographic areas (North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Western Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastern Asia/New World). The sub-Saharan sample was divided into Bantuspeaking (Mali and Kenya) and South African Khoe-San samples. The latter are represented in the Holocene archaeological record of the subcontinent, and inasmuch as they are the oldest historic indigenes of southern Africa, they might be expected to have the closest affinity to Hofmeyr (12). The North African sample consists of Epipaleolithic (Mesolithic) individuals that provide a temporal depth of approximately 10,000 years. The 3D data were also compared for two Neandertal, four Eurasian UP, and one Levantine early modern human fossils (table S5). The landmark coordinate configurations for each specimen were superimposed with the use of generalized Procrustes analysis and analyzed with a series of multivariate statistical techniques (29). Hofmeyr falls at the upper ends of the recent sub-Saharan African sample ranges and within the upper parts of all other recent human sample ranges in terms of centroid size (fig. S6). In a canonical variates analysis of these landmarks (Fig. 2), axis 1 separates the sub-Saharan African samples from the others, and axis 4 tends to differentiate the UP specimens from recent homologs. [b]Hofmeyr clusters with the UP sample,[/b] [b]and although it falls within the recent human[/b] range [b]on both axes, it is outside the 95% confidence[/b] [b]ellipse for the Khoe-San sample and barely within[/b] [b]the limits of the other sub-Saharan African sample.[/b] These canonical axes are weakly correlated with centroid size, which emphasizes that the similarity between Hofmeyr and the UP sample is due only in small part to similarity in size. [/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