|
Post by egypt1101 on Jan 3, 2013 20:33:48 GMT -5
From the JAMA report on Tut & Family:
Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family 2010
Yuya = 70.3 dolichocephalic Thutmose II = 73.4 dolichocephalic TT320-CCG61065 mummy = 74.3 dolichocephalic Akhenaten = 81.0 brachycephalic Tutankhamun = 83.9 brachycephalic
With the exception of Yuya none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly).
Cephalic indices of mummy heads were determined according to the method of Weber et al
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 4, 2013 22:03:52 GMT -5
Akhenaten's and Tutankhamun's brachycephalic head form is somewhat unusual. Coon wrote that the Ancient Egyptian royals, including Rameses III, were frequently rather dolichocephalic: "There may also have been some distinction of type in the royal families, for the rulers often have that extremely dolichocephalic head form, coupled with a sloping forehead and high nasal aquilinity, with highly excavated nostrils, seen so typically in the familiar mummy of Rameses III, as in the living emperor of Ethiopia, Hailie Selassie. This strain may well have been derived in most ancient times from the headwaters of the Nile."
hamiticunion.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=37
|
|
|
Post by egypt1101 on Jan 5, 2013 23:08:23 GMT -5
Why do you think there are discrepancies? Should we consider statements that provide the actual measurements as valid as opposed to statements which don't provide the measurements as hearsay?
I'll check out the link, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 6, 2013 15:45:52 GMT -5
Why do you think there are discrepancies? Should we consider statements that provide the actual measurements as valid as opposed to statements which don't provide the measurements as hearsay? I'll check out the link, thank you. The Egyptian population was not a single (racial) type. In fact no population by that period was because of migration and mixture. You could quite easily be dolichocephalic and give birth to a brachycephalic.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 6, 2013 19:06:15 GMT -5
What's perhaps even more surprising is that the geneticists included any cephalic data at all. Multivariate craniometric analysis would have been far more reliable and less antiquated. The researchers also could have included supplemental data on non-metric traits since this is presumably an intra-population study.
|
|