|
Post by preddinarid on Jan 7, 2013 1:18:14 GMT -5
I had an anthropology question related to this and was wondering if anybody had some knowledge. This term characterizes a bit of an "indent" in the middle of the skull. It mentions that it is a feature of some African (Negroid) skulls, but then goes onto say that it is not exclusive and shows an indent in an English skull in an example. erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap9.html - middle of page
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 7, 2013 3:23:12 GMT -5
Post-Bregmatic Depression:
"White-American" (Sample size: 136)
Present: 7 (5. 1%) Absent: 129 (94. 1%)
"Black-American" (Sample size: 76)
Present: 10 (13. 2%) Absent: 66 (86. 8%)
(Vitek, 2012)
These race categories have however been criticized since many self-identified African/"Black" Americans have Caucasoid traits (through recent mixture). However in this instance, this non-metric trait appears to be rare and randomly distributed at 5 - 15% (a figure that showed also in self-identified Native Americans).
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Jan 7, 2013 3:42:22 GMT -5
Why would it show up in some Caucasoids then?
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 7, 2013 7:36:22 GMT -5
Why would it show up in some Caucasoids then? We don't know the origin for most non-metric cranial traits. Post-Bregmatic Depression (PBD) seems to be found among all major race (what I call "macro") types at a low percent. The status of it as a racial trait is debatable. Note that its not on the Harvard List (which is the standard list for metric/non-metric racial traits). Also, the macro-types e.g. major divisions which are known as Caucasoid, Mongoloid etc, are just very broad categorizations, only useful to distinguish the major types. Typology actually works much better with more specific (intra) types like Nordid, Alpine etc. However post-1986 (Krogman & Iscan) those were no longer used in mainstream forensic textbooks.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Jan 7, 2013 11:57:09 GMT -5
I sent you a PM regarding this. Thanks for your answers.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 7, 2013 14:59:57 GMT -5
It would be very hard to notice PBD in person, since most people have hair. Even short hair would cover it.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 7, 2013 21:34:44 GMT -5
Non-metric cranial traits are usually preferable for intra- or within-population analysis since they are often quite idiosyncratic and peculiar to a given community. Craniometric traits are generally better for inter- or between-population studies.
There was a recent paper on this, if I recall.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Jan 7, 2013 23:17:59 GMT -5
Non-metric cranial traits are usually preferable for intra- or within-population analysis since they are often quite idiosyncratic and peculiar to a given community. Craniometric traits are generally better for inter- or between-population studies. There was a recent paper on this, if I recall. So post-bregmatic depression is a non-craniomertic WITHIN major races, while Craniometric traits such as prognathism are better for comparing the 3 races? This is a Caucasoid skull though correct? It doesn't look Mongoloid and lacks the prognathism of the Negro. It has Minor/mid maxiliary prognathism. Like I've said, I've seen lots of other Caucasoids with this groove, which gives me reason to believe that it's not foreign.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 8, 2013 1:37:17 GMT -5
So post-bregmatic depression is a non-craniomertic WITHIN major races, while Craniometric traits such as prognathism are better for comparing the 3 races? This is a Caucasoid skull though correct? It doesn't look Mongoloid and lacks the prognathism of the Negro. It has Minor/mid maxiliary prognathism. Like I've said, I've seen lots of other Caucasoids with this groove, which gives me reason to believe that it's not foreign. The thing about non-metric cranial and dental traits is that it's not uncommon to find phenotypic peculiarities in one population that are generally absent or occur at a much lower frequency in another, otherwise genetically related population. Such phenotypic traits are often-times population specific. This makes their analysis more suited to intra-population as opposed to inter-population study. Craniometric analysis is preferable for the latter. "The suite of nonmetric traits expressed on an individual’s skeleton and dentition has been assumed to be genetically inherited. In other words, it is assumed that the phenotype (observable characteristics) of an individual will provide direct information about his or her genotype (genetic constitution). This assumption has allowed many researchers to use nonmetric traits to assess genetic relatedness within and between populations in the archaeological record (Matsumura, 2007). Understanding these relationships in past populations (especially those without written histories) can provide information about migration patterns, residence patterns, population structures, and human origins and evolution (Hanihara, Ishida & Dodo, 2003; Hlusko, 2004; McLellan & Finnegan, 1990; Lane & Sublett, 1972; Turan-Ozdemir & Sendemir, 2006). The term "biodistance" is commonly used to describe genetic relatedness. Saunders and Rainey (2008) describe biodistance as a measure of the amount of divergence; less divergence is equal to a closer genetic relationship (Saunders & Rainey, 2008; Sherwood, Duren, Demerath, Czerwinski, Siervogel, & Towne 2008). It should be noted that research has shown nonmetric traits to be population specific and therefore only really useful for intrapopulation analyses (Cheverud & Buikstra, 1981; Kohn, 1991)."
journals.uvic.ca/index.php/arbutus/article/viewFile/3262/Wilson.pdfast
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 8, 2013 1:58:27 GMT -5
Non-metric cranial traits are usually preferable for intra- or within-population analysis since they are often quite idiosyncratic and peculiar to a given community. Craniometric traits are generally better for inter- or between-population studies. There was a recent paper on this, if I recall. So post-bregmatic depression is a non-craniomertic WITHIN major races, while Craniometric traits such as prognathism are better for comparing the 3 races? This is a Caucasoid skull though correct? It doesn't look Mongoloid and lacks the prognathism of the Negro. It has Minor/mid maxiliary prognathism. Like I've said, I've seen lots of other Caucasoids with this groove, which gives me reason to believe that it's not foreign. Someone would need a full set of indices from the crania to determine racial type affinity. Eyeball/armchair anthropology is very limited, all it can really do is rule out extreme macro-types. For example I think we're in agreement King Tut and King Atlantid are not Negroid. However to ascertain an accurate racial type, would require statistical metric data, as well as information on other phenotypic traits (non-metric data can be scored 0, 1 for absent or present). This is why I avoid the amateur classification attempts on several anthro-forums. Someone puts their picture up and they end up classified as Baltid to Dinaric to Nordid (most people don't have a clue what they are doing). Without the statistical data all this is highly inaccurate. I know my own type by taking my own measurements and other data.
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Jan 8, 2013 2:04:47 GMT -5
So post-bregmatic depression is a non-craniomertic WITHIN major races, while Craniometric traits such as prognathism are better for comparing the 3 races? This is a Caucasoid skull though correct? It doesn't look Mongoloid and lacks the prognathism of the Negro. It has Minor/mid maxiliary prognathism. Like I've said, I've seen lots of other Caucasoids with this groove, which gives me reason to believe that it's not foreign. Someone would need a full set of indices from the crania to determine racial type affinity. Eyeball/armchair anthropology is very limited, all it can really do is rule out extreme macro-types. For example I think we're in agreement King Tut and King Atlantid are not Negroid. However to ascertain an accurate racial type, would require statistical metric data, as well as information on other phenotypic traits (non-metric data can be scored 0, 1 for absent or present). This is why I avoid the amateur classification attempts on several anthro-forums. Someone puts their picture up and they end up classified as Baltid to Dinaric to Nordid (most people don't have a clue what they are doing). Without the statistical data all this is highly inaccurate. I know my own type by taking my own measurements and other data. Yes. Thank you for the comparison picture. That helped me. You've already seen a picture of my jaw before correct? I recall that I "was in the Caucasoid range" or something along the lines of that with very minor maxiliary prognathism. I'm certain of my major type, which is Caucasoid. I just want to take measurements of myself to be specific. I don't know how to go about this though. I wonder why Negroids claim King Tut as their own?
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 8, 2013 2:28:16 GMT -5
Someone would need a full set of indices from the crania to determine racial type affinity. Eyeball/armchair anthropology is very limited, all it can really do is rule out extreme macro-types. For example I think we're in agreement King Tut and King Atlantid are not Negroid. However to ascertain an accurate racial type, would require statistical metric data, as well as information on other phenotypic traits (non-metric data can be scored 0, 1 for absent or present). This is why I avoid the amateur classification attempts on several anthro-forums. Someone puts their picture up and they end up classified as Baltid to Dinaric to Nordid (most people don't have a clue what they are doing). Without the statistical data all this is highly inaccurate. I know my own type by taking my own measurements and other data. Yes. Thank you for the comparison picture. That helped me. You've already seen a picture of my jaw before correct? I recall that I "was in the Caucasoid range" or something along the lines of that with very minor maxiliary prognathism. I'm certain of my major type, which is Caucasoid. I just want to take measurements of myself to be specific. I don't know how to go about this though. I wonder why Negroids claim King Tut as their own? The most advanced on this topic, is from typologists like Michalski. Here's a table I have which I modified to remove the macro-types (which are pretty useless when it comes to greater detail): There are tables like these listing far more types, into their hundreds. It was mostly the Polish School of Anthropology that specialised in this up to the 1980's. Elsewhere this is criticized as being "outdated". I don't regard it to be though. Many modern forensics employ the same method. They only differ in that they recognise only macro-types like: Caucasoid and Mongoloid. So their race types are only limited to six or seven (Gill, 1998). www.neiu.edu/~circill/F495Y.pdf
|
|
|
Post by preddinarid on Jan 8, 2013 13:51:21 GMT -5
Yes. Thank you for the comparison picture. That helped me. You've already seen a picture of my jaw before correct? I recall that I "was in the Caucasoid range" or something along the lines of that with very minor maxiliary prognathism. I'm certain of my major type, which is Caucasoid. I just want to take measurements of myself to be specific. I don't know how to go about this though. I wonder why Negroids claim King Tut as their own? The most advanced on this topic, is from typologists like Michalski. Here's a table I have which I modified to remove the macro-types (which are pretty useless when it comes to greater detail): There are tables like these listing far more types, into their hundreds. It was mostly the Polish School of Anthropology that specialised in this up to the 1980's. Elsewhere this is criticized as being "outdated". I don't regard it to be though. Many modern forensics employ the same method. They only differ in that they recognise only macro-types like: Caucasoid and Mongoloid. So their race types are only limited to six or seven (Gill, 1998). www.neiu.edu/~circill/F495Y.pdfThank you. I sent another PM regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by Atlantid on Jan 8, 2013 16:09:52 GMT -5
One thing I noted is that Tut has virtually no supraorbital (brow)ridge development: According to H. J. Janson (1963, 1977) who surveyed thousands of pieces of ancient egyptian art, from the Old Kingdom through to later periods, weak-no brow ridges are standard. Moderate to developed brow ridges are very rare, to non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by Noah on Jan 8, 2013 16:56:31 GMT -5
Someone would need a full set of indices from the crania to determine racial type affinity. Eyeball/armchair anthropology is very limited, all it can really do is rule out extreme macro-types. Is that how you would describe your assertion elsewhere vis-a-vis the Socotrans that "there looks as if there is an Australoid strain among them"?
With regard to that table, "flaxen" and "light-blond" don't seem particularly good descriptions for skin color. It's interesting, though, that the authors list "white skin" as one of their "disqualifying features" for the Mediterranean type. Tall stature and prominent cheekbones as well, apparently. One wonders how they reconcile that with the high-statured Atlanto-Mediterranean type. From Carleton Coon: "Atlanto-Mediterranean: The tall, straight-nosed Mediterranean, not mesocephalic, as Deniker erroneously stated, but strongly dolichocephalic. Today this race forms the principal element in the population of North Africa, and is strong in Iraq, Palestine, parts of Arabia, and the eastern Balkans; in solution with varying degrees of negroid it is also the principal race in the whole of East Africa. In Europe it is a minority element in the Iberian Peninsula, Italy, and the British Isles."
|
|