The article discusses the cranial reconstruction of this woman. Now, I don't think that cranial reconstruction is necessarily bad in itself, as it can humanise the remains of these people we find as they are often discussed in the abstract. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/17041/1/M_Lewis_Bangle_Lady.pdf …
-
-
There are of course plenty of issues with aDNA and efforts to chart the aDNA of peoples is fraught also.
Show this thread -
But it reaffirms the problems we have when discussing identity in the archaeological record. I'm fairly certain that with burials found that have been deemed "Anglo-Saxon" we haven't done cranial recon to see what 'white' features they have.
Show this thread -
See also the recon of the Kennewick Man's face and how it reaffirmed the bullshit from the archaeologists that he was not related to the Umatilla peoples and other Indigenous groups in the area, and their refusal to allow others to test his DNA.
Show this thread -
Cycling back to what
@ISASaxonists and@erik_kaars are looking for with these African women, it is frustrating that when there is scholarly info it falls into the problems I outlined above but it is frequently ignored and pushed aside.Show this thread -
Even the Ivory Bangle Lady, aside from that article, has few scholarly articles on her that I can find.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.