posted 22 May 2005 10:13 PM            

Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during pre-dynastic and Dynastic Times
Journal of Human Evolution
1972 (1) pg 307-313:

“Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction off body size one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers (Angel, 1972), probably from Nubia via the predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".

X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).[/b]

Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:

The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.

If the heads of Queens Nodjme and Esemkhebe are any indication, there may have been a new influx of southern blood during the XXI Dynasty.

In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.

For source the above excerpt: Click here!

The Emergence of the Natufian

The emergence of the Natufian is explained by Bar-Yosef (1998) as follows: “On the one hand, climatic improvements around 13,000BP provided a wealth of food resources. On the other hand, contemporaneous population growth in both the steppic and desertic regions made any abrupt, short-term climatic fluctuation a motivation for human groups to achieve control over resources” (p.167). He sees a semi-sedentary lifestyle resulting from environmental change which led to a “shift of resource scheduling” (p.167).

Fellner (1995) states that “the transition from the Geometric Kebaran to the Early Natufian culture can be described as the most important cultural change within the Epipalaeolithic of Palestine, as the lifestyle of the Natufian groups differed very substantially from that practiced by their Geometric Kebaran ancestors” (p.122) The Natufian is usually seen as a key stage in Near Eastern Prehistory as it represents many features usually associated with the Neolithic. - courtesy of neareast historians, uk; epipaleolithic background.

The Mushabian-Natufian connection:

Pleistocene connections between Africa and SouthWest Asia: an archaeological perspective.
By Dr. Ofer Bar-Yosef, 1987;
The African Archaeological Review;
Chapter 5, pg 29-38.

“The Mushabians moved into the Sinai from the Nile Delta, bring North African lithic chipping techniques.”

“Thus the population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system.”

But then we have this:

The Mushabian is founded in southern Jordan, the Negev, and Sinai. It is usually divided into an earlier phase (c.14,500-12,800bp) and a later phase which overlaps with the Early Natufian (12,800-11,000bp).

The Classic Mushabian is characterized by a dominance of arched-back bladelets, La Mouillah points, and scalene triangles, all of which were truncated at one end using the microburin technique. Helwan lunates are also featured.

Evidence for economic activities are few and far between – there are very few botanical or faunal remains, but some rare pounding tools suggest that plant exploitation was a feature of the economy. Bar-Yosef and Meadow (1999) hypothesize that the subsistence strategies employed in the Mushabian were much the same as those of the steppic Geometric Kebaran and Hamran groups.

The Mushabian was traditionally thought to derive from North Africa via the Nile Delta and the Sinai: “The Mushabian sites in Sinai are interpreted as the remains of mobile groups budded off from the Nile region who were attracted to the expanding, lusher steppic environment” (Bar-Yosef and Meadow 1999, p.55). This view was based on the early occurrence of the microburin technique in industries like the Sisilian. “However, the recent discovery of even earlier use of the microburin technique in the Azraq Basin fundamentally weakens the argument, and may even indicate diffusion of this technique in the other direction” (Fellner 1995, p.26). Fellner believes that the Mushabian is most likely to derive from the Nizzanian of the Negev. - courtesy of neareast historians, uk; epipaleolithic background.

posted 24 May 2005 11:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

"This view was based on the early occurrence of the microburin technique in industries like the Sisilian. “However, the recent discovery of even earlier use of the microburin technique in the Azraq Basin fundamentally weakens the argument, and may even indicate diffusion of this technique in the other direction” (Fellner 1995, p.26). Fellner believes that the Mushabian is most likely to derive from the Nizzanian of the Negev."

---

Thought Writes:

I have come across no PEER-REVIEWED work that has Near Eastern microburin techniques predating Nile Valley microburin techniques.

posted 25 May 2005 12:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:

I have come across no PEER-REVIEWED work that has Near Eastern microburin techniques predating Nile Valley microburin techniques.

---

Same here; apparently, this Fellner person feels that he may have found something to that effect. Have you by any chance, have had access to his work, regarding this subject?

Ps-Indeed if Fellner came across something that would raise questions, I think the likes of Dr. Bar Yosef would have certainly come across it, and analyze it further, afterall, Dr. Yosef has spent much time studying these upper paleolithic or Epipaleothic people. It appears that Dr. Yosef's latest mention on this topic here, postdates (1999) that of Fellner, whose work in question, was published in 1995!

posted 25 May 2005 12:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

It appears that Dr. Yosef's latest mention on this topic here, postdates (1999) that of Fellner, whose work in question, was published in 1995!

---

Thought Writes:

Enough said.

posted 25 May 2005 01:48 AM            

These are the ones mentioned on the 'neareast.historians' website:

Bar-Yosef and Meadows 1995
The Origins of Agriculture in the Near East
In Price, T.D. and Gebauer, A.B. 1995
Last Hunters, First Farmers
School of American Research

Fellner, R.O. 1995
Cultural Change and the Epipalaeolithic of Palestine

At any rate, Mr. Ehret view is in line with those of Dr. Yosef. which he expressed quite recently...

A Conversation with Christopher Ehret excerpt, 2004:

WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?

Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ­ the Mushabaeans? ­ are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.

Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this.

posted 25 May 2005 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Have no choice but to praise you for another excellent thread.

---