/sci/ - Science & Math

from examination and comparison of several excavated crania from Kish. Linguistics tends to support the morphological interpretations insofar as the Sumerians at first used a language seemingly unrelated to any other in the area.

Regarding cranial analysis:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2843826?uid=3739568&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&si
d=21100878567291

One of the proposals for the affiliations of the language is that it is North Caucasic, or a closely allied Vasco-Dene language. They were immigrants to the region as well, and brought the deluge myth with them. Looking where their supposed relatives would be, they could have been a people displaced from areas inundated in the Black Sea event. All hypothetical of course...

From a biologist viewpoint all animals belong to the Tetrapoda family.

>>4817391
except for the insects and worms and spiders and fish and corals and anemones and tunicates and sponges and crabs and clams and snails and octopodes/pi/puses and the barnacles and the

wait, what are you even talking about?

>>4817377
craniology is psuedoscience from the 1900s.

>>4817348
Race does not mean what you think it means.

>>4817408
morphometrics is however a science you've never heard of I guess.

>>4817410
Morphometrics aren't used for "race" anymore.

Here, douchebag.
http://w01.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/288/
www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-11-288.pdf

research also suggests R1-M173 spread from africa to europe.

>>4817429
anthropometry is certainly still used in phylogeography.

not sure what your obsession with race is, fuckwad.

also I can't copy a link from 4chan since the recent overhaul, so whatever dood.

>>4817431

Then it's only used as a social science. lrn2dna or gfto

>>4817432
blow me.

I do bones not molecules.

>>4817429

from the research article

>Conclusions: Evidence of genetic stratification ascribable to the Sumerian development was provided by the Ychromosome data where the J1-Page08 branch reveals a local expansion, almost contemporary with the Sumerian City State period that characterized Southern Mesopotamia. On the other hand, a more ancient background shared with Northern Mesopotamia is revealed by the less represented Y-chromosome lineage J1-M267*. Overall our results indicate that the introduction of water buffalo breeding and rice farming, most likely from the Indian subcontinent, only marginally affected the gene pool of autochthonous people of the region. Furthermore, a prevalent Middle Eastern ancestry of the modern population of the marshes of southern Iraq implies that if the Marsh Arabs are descendants of the ancient Sumerians, also the Sumerians were most likely autochthonous and not of Indian or South Asian ancestry.

>>4817408
>bashing craniology

U are confusing it with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology

>>4817487

Phrenology came from cranioscopy, a sub-field of craniology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniology

and yes, both are considered psuedoscience. People rely on genetics now to deduce traits and relationships.

>>4817499
genetics is worthless in any extinct population without descendents.

not much of a problem in contemporary anthropology, but in systematics in general genetics is worthless for ~99% organisms.

must be frustrating.

>>4817510

Modern anthropologists rely on both mtDNA and Y-DNA for this. Though it did present a much larger problem in the past.

>>4817499
....

"Further information: Phrenology and Physiognomy

Intelligence testing was compared with anthropometrics. Samuel George Morton (1799–1851) collected hundreds of human skulls from all over the world and started trying to find a way to classify them according to some logical criterion. Morton claimed that he could judge intellectual capacity by cranial capacity. A large skull meant a large brain and high intellectual capacity, a small skull indicated a small brain and decreased intellectual capacity. Modern science has since confirmed that there is a correlation between cranium size (measured in various ways) and intelligence as measured by IQ tests, although it is a weak correlation at about 0.2. Today, brain volume as measured with MRI scanners also find a correlation between intelligence at about 0.4.[4]

Craniometry was also used in phrenology, which purported to determine character, personality traits, and criminality on the basis of the shape of the head. At the turn of the 18th to 19th century, Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1822) developed "cranioscopy" (Ancient Greek kranion - "skull", scopos - "vision"), a method to determine the personality and development of mental and moral faculties on the basis of the external shape of the skull. Cranioscopy was later renamed phrenology (phrenos: mind, logos: study) by his student Johann Spurzheim (1776–1832), who wrote extensively on "Drs. Gall and Spurzheim's physiognomical System." These all claimed the ability to predict traits or intelligence and were intensively practised in the 19th and the first part of the 20th century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropometry#Typology_and_personality

>>4817528

From the same article

>In Crania Americana Morton claimed that Caucasians had the biggest brains, averaging 87 cubic inches, Indians were in the middle with an average of 82 cubic inches and Negroes had the smallest brains with an average of 78 cubic inches.[1] In 1873 Paul Broca (1824–1880) found the same pattern described by Samuel Morton's Crania Americana by weighing brains at autopsy. Other historical studies alleging a Black-White difference in brain size include Bean (1906), Mall, (1909), Pearl, (1934) and Vint (1934). But in Germany Rudolf Virchow's study led him to denounce "Nordic mysticism" in the 1885 Anthropology Congress in Karlsruhe. Josef Kollmann, a collaborator of Virchow, stated in the same congress that the people of Europe, be them German, Italian, English or French, belonged to a "mixture of various races," furthermore declaring that the "results of craniology" led to "struggle against any theory concerning the superiority of this or that European race".[10] Virchow later rejected measure of skulls as legitimate means of taxonomy. Paul Kretschmer quoted an 1892 discussion with him concerning these criticisms, also citing Aurel von Törok's 1895 work, who basically proclaimed the failure of craniometry.[10]


It should be noted that this was all in a time period where people believed that god made the 'perfect man' in the Caucasus mountains and they degraded as they traveled. This is also back when people used the term "Caucasian" in a scientific context.

The Kurgan Hypothesis is amongst the most robust out there dealing with indo-european origins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_hypothesis

There are also attempts to map migration through mtDNA and Y-DNA.

semitic races are a subset of caucasoid races.

>>4817499

>both are considered pseudoscience
but then again we life in Zionist controlled governments.
Phrenology is bullshit but why would Craniology be wrong?