code:
Romano-British 2.05
“E” Series .69
Lachish, Maghreb .53
Sedment .22
Abydos .11
Nakada -.44
Kerma -.60
Badari -1.50
Gaboon -1.56
Teita -1.77
quote:Indeed, I've long noticed such bias concerning cranial studies of North Africa. Fortunately this major fallacy (nonsense) is beginning to be rectified.
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
As I've said earlier, an African complex like AE, almost treated like an extraterrotorial sphere, whereby all this hype about this north-south hype is brought about, largely by Eurocentric groups. Yet these same proponents don't hold Europe, the so-called 'Southwest Asia', or anywhere else sans Africa, to the same standards...
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions.
S.O.Y. Keita
… Musgrave and Evans (1980), using principal coordinates analysis (PCO), undertook an analysis of several “Greek,” Cretan, Minoan, Egyptian, and the Lachish series in an effort to answer the question of early eastern Mediterranean island population origins, and to investigate biological relationships with Egypt. The Lachish series is not found to plot near any Greek or eastern Mediterranean island series. .... Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon…
INTERPRETATION, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
... The results seem to indicate that the morphometric patterns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice. This suggests that the Lachish series might contain crania from these areas. Historically it is known that Egypt had long been in contact with this area, as noted earlier. The Bible (I1 Kings) recounts the destruction wrought by Sennacherib, and suggests an alliance of the Judean Kingdom with Egypt during the time of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, when Nubia ruled Egypt (Abu Bakr, 1981). Nowhere is this more vividly revealed than in this warning to Sennacherib as he approached Jerusalem. “Behold, Tirhakah the Ethiopian (Nubian) has come out to fight against thee” (II Kings 19: 8-9). Tirhakah was one of the pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.
quote:Actually, I think it is a little more complex than that. Yes, there is certainly a will to treat an exclusive African complex like Kemet as an extraterrestrial element, as this standard is applied to Kemet but rarely applied to ancient Greece, Rome, so-called Mesopotamia, China, Indus Valley, ancient Meso-America or any other such cultures of antinquity, none of which will pass the test of homogeneity in lineage. However, as I have just demonstrated, there is usually also lack of understanding about what these craniometric studies are looking at. For instance, some think that northern coastal African crania represent a single type, presumably homogenous. This study shows that this clearly isn't the case.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Indeed, I've long noticed such bias concerning cranial studies of North Africa. Fortunately this major fallacy (nonsense) is beginning to be rectified.
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
As I've said earlier, an African complex like AE, almost treated like an extraterrotorial sphere, whereby all this hype about this north-south hype is brought about, largely by Eurocentric groups. Yet these same proponents don't hold Europe, the so-called 'Southwest Asia', or anywhere else sans Africa, to the same standards...
quote:Expectedly, the present study [under discussion] does mention Risdon's work, amongst many others:
Originally posted by alTakruri:
...There are older analyses of the skeletal remains
of the Lachish ossuary which contained about 695
Judahite (ancient Jews) crania of all ages and
gender. Lachish had been held by Israelites since
roughly 500 years before its Assyrian conquest.
D. L. Risdon in BIOMETRIKA 1939 31:99-166, reported
that the Lachish cranial series has its closest resemblance
to the 4th dynasty series from Deshasheh and Medum in
Lower Egypt and the 18th dynasty samples from Thebes
and Abydos in Upper Egypt. Cranial samples from other
Palestinian sites (Gezer, Megiddo) agree with the Lachish
cranium.
Thus we have a clear African phenotypical continuum in
the southern Hebrews of Judah based on their cranial
similarity to certain Nile Valley folk.
quote:I have no reason to assume so or deny so, unless demonstrated. Natufians seem to have resembled the "forest Negro" archetype in many respects, judging by the language used by researchers like Brace, who uses terms like "a hint of sub-Saharan" to describe sub-Saharan crania. However, it was said that...
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Very interesting. So tell me, do you think the Lachish remains represent a continuity of the Natufians, or a recent migration of Egyptians?
code:^The only other relatively 'southward' African specimens that I've come across, aside from ancient southern Egyptian and ancient "Nubian" specimens, were the 'Gabon' series and the 'Teita' series. So, I take it that the tropical Africans mentioned above, are these latter two. It is of note though that, whereas the Lachish series misclassified into the Gabon series, none fell into the Teita series:
Romano-British 2.05
“E” Series .69
Lachish, Maghreb .53
Sedment .22
Abydos .11
Nakada -.44
Kerma -.60
Badari -1.50
Gaboon -1.56
Teita -1.77
code:In both the first table representing "Function I scores", and table 2 representing "Lachish classification results", paying attention to the northern African crania, we again notice differentiation between the Sedment, Maghreb & "E" series.Group Lachish included: Lachish unknown:
Percent classification Percent classification
2 Maghreb 6.6 1.6
4 “E” Series 16.4 24.6
6 Abydos 6.6 16.4
8 Badari 0.0 1.6
10 Sedment 3.3 9.8
16 Kerma 8.2 11.5
18 Teita 0.0 0.0
20 Nakada 9.8 16.4
22 Gaboon 4.9 4.9
24 Poundbury 4.9 4.9
26 Lachish 39.3 -