posted
Excerpt from Africa: A Biography of the Continent By John Reader
“The human populations of Africa which have survived the bad times of the last glacial maximum were well adapted to take advantage of the good times that followed. Their archaeological visibility increased rapidly, and a steady proliferation of rock engraving, painting, and decorative items in the record points to cultural systems of heightening sophistication. As for food-production systems underpinning this population growth and burgeoning cultural sophistication, two innovations are particularly relevant, in that each represents an important stage of technological development and both are clues to the future of humanity.” “The first is the digging-stick weight, which is simply a large stone with a hole bored through the middle. The stone fits on the stick and its weight lends added force as the point is thrust into the ground. Digging-stick weights appear in the African archaeological record during the last glacial maximum, and their invention suggests that food-gathering technology had been improved in response to the greater importance of subterranean foods-roots, tubers, and corms- during the period of climatic stress. The second innovation is the projectile point, made for use on the spear or the bow and arrow…..the evidence of projectile-point technology in Africa pre-dates that from any other part of the world…..and there can be no doubt that the spear and the bow would have made hunting a more reliable source of protein and fat during bad times.” “The digging-stick represents the beginnings of agriculture and the trend towards a sedentary way of life. The projectile point represents a refinement of human capacity for taking life.” “Agriculture supported life, and the projectile point denied it. Both factors were evident during the millennia which followed the last glacial maximum. In climatic terms, the good times continued uninterruptedly, and the human population increased exponentially. The attempts to manipulate food production which mark the beginnings of agriculture encouraged extended use of areas that previously would have been visited only temporarily. Successful attempts raised population size above the carrying capacity of the land. “ “In the course of the 2,000 years immediately prior to the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago, the number of sites in the Nile valley increased four-fold; during the following 2,000 years (18,000 to 16,000 years ago) the number almost doubled again, and it increased by yet another one-third between 16,000 and 14,000 years ago. By 12,000 years ago, the number of occupation sites along the Nile valley was more than ten times the number known from before the last glacial maximum, 6,000 years earlier.” “Throughout this period the majority of sites had covered an area about 400 m (the home base for a group of perhaps forty people), but the size of the largest rose from 800 m 18,000 years ago to more than 10,000 m 6,000 years later – large enough to constitute a village.” “During the 1960’s, an international team of archaeologists discovered a burial ground about three kilometers north of Wadi Halfa in the Sudan….Excavations uncovered the skeletons of fifty-nine men, women and children, who had been buried in shallow graves under thin slabs of sandstones sometime between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago….Points were found wedged in the spine, and embedded in the skull, the pelvis, and the limb bons” “Violence on this scale, at this period, is not known from anywhere else in the world. It was almost certainly the consequence of a collapse in the proto-agricultural system which had developed in that section of the Nile valley during the last glacial maximum. The mainstays of the system were catfish and wetland (and possible wild grass grains), which were abundantly available at certain times of the year – catfish in summer, wetland tubers in winter – when surpluses were harvested and stored for consumption during the months of the year when food was less readily available.” “Harvesting and storage mark the beginning of organized food production: agriculture. But at that stage of its development in the Nile valley organized food production was a high-risk strategy. Output was likely to vary unpredictably, and any increase in population size resulting from a succession of good years would inevitably lead to competition in less favorable times. The burials at Jebel Sahaba (Wadi Halfa) probably record one such episode of violent competition, or warfare, for limited resources of a less than luxuriant Nile valley that was surrounded by an utterly inhospitable desert.” “The adoption of this broad adaptive strategy provided the large food supply needed by a growing population, but achieving maximum production called for a good deal of planning and the management of labour. This marks the beginning of an organized food-producing system: agriculture.” “Dating from more than 15,000 years ago, the evidence from the Nile valley is arguably the earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth. Given time, this pioneering system might have developed into the stupendous civilizations that ruled ancient Egypt for two and a half millennia from about 5,000 years ago. But it could never be. Disaster struck the Nile valley as its population reached a peak, and by 10,000 years ago occupation density had plunged to a level only slighltly above that known for the time of the Wadi Kubbaniya site.”
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Excerpt from Africa: A Biography of the Continent By John Reader
“Dating from more than 15,000 years ago, the evidence from the Nile valley is arguably the earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth. Given time, this pioneering system might have developed into the stupendous civilizations that ruled ancient Egypt for two and a half millennia from about 5,000 years ago. But it could never be. Disaster struck the Nile valley as its population reached a peak, and by 10,000 years ago occupation density had plunged to a level only slighltly above that known for the time of the Wadi Kubbaniya site.”
Evergreen Writes:
However, we now know that Reader is incorrect, the "earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth" did not come to an end with the onset of the Holocene. We now know that this African agricultural system branched off into two directions:
1. West into the emerging fertile Sahara (Sahel) west of the Nile. This culture merged with West African elements to form the Sarahan Neolithic and it later back-migrated into the Nile during the late Neolithic to form the Egyptian pre-dynastic.
2. Up the Nile valley and out of the delta into the Levant and around the circum-Mediterranean Basin to form the neolithic cultures of the Middle Eastern, Europe and Indus Valey.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic Burial from Southern Egypt Description and comparison of the skeleton
By J. Lawrence Angel and Jennifer Olsen Kelley
“It is also similar to that of other desert-adapted or even savannah-adapted populations of Upper Paleolithic to modern times in the range from Morrocco and Egypt to the lake country of East Africa.”
“The proper comparisons would be with the hunting and fishing populations between 20,000 and 8,000 B.P., along and between the Nile drainage, from the mountains and forested terrain of Zaire to the savannah lake country. Northwards, toward the Delta (actual Nile Delta sites obviously are very deeply buried) and finally with the chain of North African populations.”
“If we had Upper Paleolithic to early Mesolithic samples from Egypt, Libya and the northern Sahara, we would probably find a smooth transition from the Ishango-Lothagam-Elementeita proto-Nilotics to the Mecha-Afalou proto- Moors and proto-Berbers.”
“The Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton is a link in a chain of hunting and fishing peoples present in Africa, from 20,000 B.P. to 8,000 B.P. They are the direct ancestors of modern Nilotics, Nubians, Egyptians, probably Libyans and Berbers.”
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form (?)
CL Brace et al.
"If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.”
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa
Fulvio Cruciani et al.
“Recently, it has been proposed that E3b originated in sub-Saharan Africa and expanded into the Near East and northern Africa at the end of the Pleistocene (Underhill et al. 2001). E3b lineages would have then been introduced from the Near East into southern Europe by immigrant farmers, during the Neolithic expansion (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2001).”
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This marks the beginning of an organized food-producing system: agriculture. “Dating from more than 15,000 years ago, the evidence from the Nile valley is arguably the earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth
^ The subtle point here is to counter the method of controling what does/does not constitute civilisation, based upon and unconcious agenda to promote "middle east", as origin soure.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Excerpt from Africa: A Biography of the Continent By John Reader
“In the course of the 2,000 years immediately prior to the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago, the number of sites in the Nile valley increased four-fold; during the following 2,000 years (18,000 to 16,000 years ago) the number almost doubled again, and it increased by yet another one-third between 16,000 and 14,000 years ago. By 12,000 years ago, the number of occupation sites along the Nile valley was more than ten times the number known from before the last glacial maximum, 6,000 years earlier.” “Throughout this period the majority of sites had covered an area about 400 m (the home base for a group of perhaps forty people), but the size of the largest rose from 800 m 18,000 years ago to more than 10,000 m 6,000 years later – large enough to constitute a village.”
Evergreen Writes:
When one considers the high population density of Nilotic Africa in comparison to contemporary SW Asia and Europe the high frequencies of the PN2 Clade (haplogroup E) in this region make sense.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: First Farmers The Origins of Agricultural Societies By Peter Bellwood
Ohalo II Phase 19,000 BC until 15,000 BC
“At this time, available data suggest a very low population density for Southwest Asia”.
“After 15,000 BC, an archaeological complex known as the geometric Kebaran developed in the southern Levant”.
“One presumed they harvested wild cereals like their Ohalo predecessors, but, unlike their Natufian successors, they apparently still did not use stone sickles”.
“By 12,500 BC, the Geometric Kebaran microlithic industry was evolving into the Natufian descendent. In the overall sense, sites increased markedly in number and area during the Natufian”.
“This suggests that the human population was increasing rapidly, especially during the early Natufian, before the commencement of the Younger Dryas cold phase (11,000 to 9,500 BC)”.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Evergreen: First Farmers The Origins of Agricultural Societies By Peter Bellwood
“One presumed they harvested wild cereals like their Ohalo predecessors, but, unlike their Natufian successors, they apparently still did not use stone sickles”.
Evergreen Posts:
Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, edited by J.O. Vogel
"The oldest-known microliths have been found in Africa. Such information has added significantly to the growing body of evidence documenting the early contributions of prehistoric peoples in Africa to the overall development of technology."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The Natufian Culture in the Levant, Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture
By OFER BAR-YOSEF
Evolutionary Anthropology 1989
"The climatic improvement after 14,500 BP seems to have been responsable for the prescence of more stable human occupations in the steppic and desertic belts. Groups moved into areas that were previously **UNINHABITED**, from the Mediterranean steppe into the margins of the Syro-Arabian desert. Others came from the Nile Valley, creating an interesting social mosaic."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I checked out that book by John Reader once.
I didn't take any notes, but I noted to myself in a notebook of books that though at times it's obvious the book is a bit outdated it still has its gems.
posted
"If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
Are they saying the Natufians were a mixture of Sub-saharan and Eurasian people?
Posts: 404 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you clarify something for me please. The subject header would have me surmise agriculture originated only once and in Africa calling for diffusion to places like East Asia, Pacifica, and the Americas.
Is this in fact being proposed or does it allude to the initial instances of agriculture anywhere in the world or just what precisely does the header mean?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Can you clarify something for me please. The subject header would have me surmise agriculture originated only once and in Africa calling for diffusion to places like East Asia, Pacifica, and the Americas.
Is this in fact being proposed or does it allude to the initial instances of agriculture anywhere in the world or just what precisely does the header mean?
Thank you.
Evergreen Writes:
The content explains itself. This thread relates to the origin of agriculture in Africa, Europe, the "Middle East" and Indus-Valley.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obenga: "If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
Are they saying the Natufians were a mixture of Sub-saharan and Eurasian people?
Evergreen Writes:
Yes.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ [The Natufians: The Original Black Africans of Israel - By Jide Uwechia
Seven or eight thousand years ago in what geologist call the Holocene era (i.e. modern times) a black tribe from Africa established themselves in Palestine. The New York Times reported this spectacular fact in many of its editions between the years 1857 and 1932.
Skulls and thighbones of the indigenes of this culture were unearthed and studied for the first time between 1928 and 1932. The archelogical sites were first pin-pointed at Shukbah near Jerusalem and later in caves at Mount Carmel.
As always happens with the discovery of the earliest African global Diaspora, the western archeologists who carried out the digs designated them with an almost meaningless and obfuscating appellation the “Natufians.”
The first authoritative account of the first and original Black African Israelites aka the Natufian was given by Sir Arthur Keith to the congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences. It was perceived then to be one of the greatest riddles of archaeology.
Black African Israelites
According to Sir Arthur, these original Israelites were clearly a Black people of African descent. Osteological analysis gave scientific backing to this theory. They had classical west African facial features as well as doliocephalic skull index (i.e. long large heads). Sir Arthur had stated:
“Several features stand out quite definitely first the Natufians were a long-headed people - they had cap-shaped occiputs (the lower back part of the head). Secondly, the dimensions or their heads were greater than in the pre-dynastic Egyptians. Thirdly, their faces were short and wide. Fourthly, they were prognathous (with projecting jaws). Fifthly, their nasal bones were not narrow and high, but formed a wide, low arch. Sixthly, their chins were not prominent, but were masked by the fullness of the teeth-bearing parts of the jaw.
Many of them were short and stocky with remarkable developed thighs and legs. They also had a custom of extracting the two upper central incisor teeth of their women.
On a lighter note, it is recalled that some eminent Eurocentric scholars had taken exception to Sir Arthur’s conjectures. One Professor Smith had objected too, that it was hardly possible that these people (meaning Natufians) had had Negro blood, but Sir Arthur speedily corrected him.
By the word Negroid he meant merely “Negro-like characteristics” such as are found throughout Europe and even in Scandinavia.
Sir Arthur drew the inference that the Natufians had carried Aurignacian culture into Palestine after the last glacier age, which was approximately 35000 years ago.
Fast forward to 2005 and note the tedious musings of C.L. Brace (2005):
“If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.”
Unlike Any present Race.
These original African Israelites may have been ancestors of all the later day Semites including the later day Jews and Arabs of the biblical times in Sir Arthur’s opinion.
The close connections of those original African Israelites to the wider Mediterranean coastal civilizations are underlined by noted physical and cultural resemblances between the two populations.
Larry Angel (1972) noted: one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.
The Natufians had physical and cultural affinities with the Neolithic or late Stone Age men of Malta (the founding people of the Aegean and Greek cultures) and the remoter Aurignacian men of Southern Europe (who established much of the modern European stratum). Linkages have also been noted between the African Israelites and the ancient Ur of the Chaldees and the prehistoric man of South Africa.
However, to mollify the angst of his more Eurocentric scholars and promote the pale-skin supremacist agenda which underlies all mainstream establishment scholarship Sir Arthur had defamed the memory of the African Natufians of Israel with hasty and flimsy accusations of cannibalism. Suffice it to say that those baseless inferences are no longer supported by any serious research work on the culture of the Natufians.
It is generally accepted today that the Natufians were an advanced, cultured, and highly innovative people to whom we owe the gifts of agriculture and urban civilization.
Agriculture and Natufians
Modern wheat was a fertile mutation of wild wheat. It made much better food. But its seeds don’t go anywhere. They’re bound more firmly to the stalk, and they cannot ride the wind. Without farmers to collect and sow wheat, it dies. Thus modern wheat is one of those quintessential Agricultural innovation of humanity.
To better state it, it can be said with certainty that it took great scientific leap based on observation, followed by eons of experimentation before a crop as hardy and as successful as the modern wheat could have been bred. Even today thousands of years down the line, with intimidating knowledge and technological tools, humanity is not able to surpass the creation of those Black Africans of Israel.
For it is generally conceded by all authorities on this matter, that the earliest evidence of agriculture was found among those Black Africans of Jericho and the Dead Sea. It is said that in 8000 B.C. the Natufians were the first to cultivate modern wheat. They were also the first farmers. And notably they were the first Israelites. Eminent European researchers also claim that a branch from this same stock of people later moved on to Europe and became the first Europeans.
Feb 11, 2008
BONES OF CANNIBALS A PALESTINE RIDDLE; Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times 1857; Aug 4, 1932; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2003) pg. 21
Wireless to NEW YORK TIMES London Aug. 3 1932
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obenga: Thank you Evergeen and Rasol.....a very inforamtive and useful thread.
Is there a relationship between this Natufian population from the levant and the anceastral origins of berber speaking peoples?
I'm curious about the ancestral origns of the magreb population
Evergreen Writes:
Not all Berber speakers live in the Maghreb. However, both the Natufians and the Berber speakers share a common Late Stone Age sub-saharan African origin. This is demonstrated via the shared y-chromosome haplogroup E3b and common Afro-Asiatic languges.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obenga: "If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
Are they saying the Natufians were a mixture of Sub-saharan and Eurasian people?
Evergreen Writes:
Yes.
What about crania that doesn’t fit the "sub saharan" type? Are they still African? In other words could it be that the "Eurasians" or other non-sub Saharan” types are really the Elongated African type?
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't have time to dole out some well deserved intellectual thrashings, but how many times do you fools have to see the same thing in order to recognize a pattern.
Sub-saharan Natufian Bantu and a host of other made up terms.
Its the same thing over and over. When are you fools going to learn?
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not using "Sub-Ssahran" as Chimu, Brace et al do. Im just asking if thats the only recognised African type among the Natufian? Or is the "Eurasian" in fact the other African variant i.e. the elongated type found in North Africa.
Argyle104, I seriously dont get what youre trying to say.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Sub-sahara does not delimit authentic African. - Keita.
As long as you chase the 'sub-sahara' ruse, Eurocentrists win and you lose.
Eurocentrism is and enemy of truth.
Never let and enemy define your terms.
IMO, he doesn't appear to be expressing adherance to any notions of an isolated sub-saharan Africa anywhere in his reply to you.
I'm certain he was questioning Brace's use of "Eurasian".
I don't see this as all that necissary since they were in South Western Asia.
Though, since they cranially cluster closest with Bronze Age Nubia who are indeed African, I can see why he may think to question it.
"When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups show that they are closely related to each other ranging all the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to sub-Saharan Africa......The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it." - CL Brace
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: I'm not using "Sub-Ssahran" as Chimu, Brace et al do. Im just asking if thats the only recognised African type among the Natufian? Or is the "Eurasian" in fact the other African variant i.e. the elongated type found in North Africa.
Interesting question. Prior to the Natufian [actually named after the town in Palestine where the remains were found], the skeletal remains of Isreal have characterestics more typical of Western Eurasians - very narrow nose opening, high nose ridge, flat [back of] heads [not elongated], little to no prognathism.
Natufians had *very* wide nose openings, with low ridges, elongated back of the head, and substantial prognathism, which all characterise what Keita calls the 'broad faced' feature set.
At this time these characteristics are relatively uncommon in Europe, however post Natufian, they will soon appear again in Greece.
It was anthropologist Larry Angel [Keita's professor] who suggested in the 70's that neolithic greece was peopled in part by settlers from Nile Valley Africa.
Angel's approach, like Keita's was a bit dry and cerebral.
It is perhaps for this reason that [like Keita], he was never refuted and never -attacked- by Eurocentrists in the manner of Bernal [Black Athena], for example.
But they are saying largely the same things about Ancient Greece.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: I'm not using "Sub-Ssahran" as Chimu, Brace et al do. Im just asking if thats the only recognised African type among the Natufian? Or is the "Eurasian" in fact the other African variant i.e. the elongated type found in North Africa.
Interesting question. Prior to the Natufian [actually named after the town in Palestine where the remains were found], the skeletal remains of Isreal have characterestics more typical of Western Eurasians - very narrow nose opening, high nose ridge, flat [back of] heads [not elongated], little to no prognathism.
Natufians had *very* wide nose openings, with low ridges, elongated back of the head, and substantial prognathism, which all characterise what Keita calls the 'broad faced' feature set.
At this time these characteristics are relatively uncommon in Europe, however post Natufian, they will soon appear again in Greece.
It was anthropologist Larry Angel [Keita's professor] who suggested in the 70's that neolithic greece was peopled in part by settlers from Nile Valley Africa.
Angel's approach, like Keita's was a bit dry and cerebral.
It is perhaps for this reason that [like Keita], he was never refuted and never -attacked- by Eurocentrists in the manner of Bernal [Black Athena], for example.
But they are saying largely the same things about Ancient Greece.
I remember an exchange with Chimu (under the name Salassin) tried to “prove” the Natufians weren’t black by quoting Brace saying they only had "whips" of Sub Saharan. That’s why I wanted some clarification. But I'm a lot clearer now from reading the various posts. I’ve never really gone in-depth with the Natufians.
My knowledge of that region is dusty, mostly from past readings of people like Diop and Van Sertima on the Phoenicians and related colonies etc. I know they didn’t look like present day inhabitants, but I wanted clarification of the terms used to describe the various clusters etc.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
---------------------------- I'm not using "Sub-Ssahran" as Chimu, Brace et al do. Im just asking if thats the only recognised African type among the Natufian? Or is the "Eurasian" in fact the other African variant i.e. the elongated type found in North Africa.
Argyle104, I seriously dont get what youre trying to say. ----------------------------
I don't give a damn dummy. : )
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on Argyle leave him alone he seems cool. He is just trying to learn as I am. Don't ever discourage someone's desire to learn.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The following is a confirmation of early European populations still being tropically adapted having the original skin color of their African ancestors, but when farming spread with the Natufians into Europe, their diets changed and they needed to absorb Vitamin D in other ways, so they(Europeans) developed a tolerance for lactose. Early immigrants to Europe(coming from Africa), who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their diet, and needed to absorb more sunlight as well to produce the vitamin D in their skin. Cultural factors, such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces.
Wonderful confirmation of the 5 or so selected skin genes which caused European paleness only recently.
It's a wonderful confirmation of the RECENT African admixture in Southern Europeans, and of course, the African origins of Agriculture.
Dr. Wells, of the National Geographic Society, said Dr. Pritchard's results were fascinating and would help anthropologists explain the immense diversity of human populations even though their genes are generally similar. The relative handful of selected genes that Dr. Pritchard's study has pinpointed may hold the answer, he said, adding, "Each gene has a story of some pressure we adapted to."
Dr. Wells is gathering DNA from across the globe to map in finer detail the genetic variation brought to light by the HapMap project.
Dr. Pritchard's list of selected genes also includes five that affect skin color. The selected versions of the genes occur solely in Europeans and are presumably responsible for pale skin. Anthropologists have generally assumed that the first modern humans to arrive in Europe some 45,000 years ago had the dark skin of their African origins, but soon acquired the paler skin needed to admit sunlight for vitamin D synthesis.
The finding of five skin genes selected 6,600 years ago could imply that Europeans acquired their pale skin much more recently. Or, the selected genes may have been a reinforcement of a process established earlier, Dr. Pritchard said. The five genes show no sign of selective pressure in East Asians.
Because Chinese and Japanese are also pale, Dr. Pritchard said, evolution must have accomplished the same goal in those populations by working through different genes or by changing the same genes — but many thousands of years before, so that the signal of selection is no longer visible to the new test.
ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2007) — The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC. However, through exposure to milk, lactose tolerance evolved extremely rapidly, in evolutionary terms. Today, it is present in over ninety per cent of the population of northern Europe and is also found in some African and Middle Eastern populations but is missing from the majority of the adult population globally.
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."
The team carried out DNA tests on Neolithic skeletons from some of the earliest organised farming communities in Europe. Their aim was to find out whether these early Europeans from various sites in central, northeast and southeast Europe, carried a version of the lactase gene that controls our ability to produce the essential enzyme lactase into adulthood. The team found that it was absent from their ancient bone DNA. This led the researchers to conclude that the consumption and tolerance of milk would have been very rare or absent at the time.
Scientists have known for decades that at some point in the past all humans were lactose intolerant. What was not known was just how recently lactose tolerance evolved.
Dr Thomas said: "To go from lactose tolerance being rare or absent seven to eight thousand years ago to the commonality we see today in central and northern Europeans just cannot be explained by anything except strong natural selection. Our study confirms that the variant of the lactase gene appeared very recently in evolutionary terms and that it became common because it gave its carriers a massive survival advantage. Scientists have inferred this already through analysis of genes in today's population but we've confirmed it by going back and looking at ancient DNA."
This study challenges the theory that certain groups of Europeans were lactose tolerant and that this inborn ability led the community to pursue dairy farming. Instead, they actually evolved their tolerance of milk within the last 8000 years due to exposure to milk.
Dr Thomas said: "There were two theories out there: one that lactose tolerance led to dairy farming and another that exposure to milk led to the evolution of lactose tolerance. This is a simple chicken or egg question but one that is very important to archaeologists, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. We found that the lactose tolerance variant of the lactase gene only became common after dairy farming, which started around 9 thousand years ago in Europe.
"This is just one part of the picture researchers are gathering about lactose tolerance and the origins of Europeans. Next on the list is why there is such disparity in lactose tolerance between populations. It's striking, for example, that today around eighty per cent of southern Europeans cannot tolerate lactose even though the first dairy farmers in Europe probably lived in those areas. Through computer simulations and DNA testing we are beginning to get glimpses of the bigger early European picture."
Earliest European Farmers Left Little Genetic Mark On Modern Europe
ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2005) — The farmers who brought agriculture to central Europe about 7,500 years ago did not contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans, according to the first detailed analysis of ancient DNA extracted from skeletons of early European farmers.
The passionate debate over the origins of modern Europeans has a long history, and this work strengthens the argument that people of central European ancestry are largely the descendants of "Old Stone Age," Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.
This paper appears in the 11 November 2005 issue of the journal Science published by AAAS the nonprofit science society.
The researchers from Germany, the United Kingdom and Estonia extracted and analyzed DNA from the mitochondria of 24 skeletons of early farmers from 16 locations in Germany, Austria and Hungary. Six of these 24 skeletons contain genetic signatures that are extremely rare in modern European populations. Based on this discovery, the researchers conclude that early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern European populations.
"This was a surprise. I expected the distribution of mitochondrial DNA in these early farmers to be more similar to the distribution we have today in Europe," said Science author Joachim Burger from Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany.
"Our paper suggests that there is a good possibility that the contribution of early farmers could be close to zero," said Science author Peter Forster from the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK.
To get at questions surrounding the ancestry of modern Europeans, the researchers studied mitochondrial DNA from early farmers in Central Europe. Mothers pass mitochondrial DNA to their offspring primarily "as is," without mixing or recombination with mitochondrial DNA from fathers. Mitochondrial DNA, therefore, provides a way for researchers to piece together how closely members of a species are related, using maternal lineages as a guide, explained Burger.
In the new study, the researchers attempted to extract mitochondrial DNA from the skeletons of 56 humans who lived in various parts of Central Europe about 7500 years ago. These ancient humans all belonged to well known cultures that can be identified by the decorations on their pottery -- the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) and the Alföldi Vonaldiszes Kerámia (AVK). The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago.
From bones and teeth of these 56 skeletons, the researchers extracted mitochondrial DNA sufficient for analysis from 24 of the skeletons. Six of the 24 early farmers belonged to the "N1a" human lineage, according to genetic signatures or "haplotypes" in their mitochondrial DNA that the researchers studied. These six skeletons are from archeological sites all across central Europe. Few modern Europeans belong to this N1a lineage, and those that do are spread across much of Europe.
The other 18 early farmers belonged to lineages not useful for investigating the genetic origins of modern Europeans because their genetic signatures from the scrutinized region of mitochondrial DNA are widespread in living humans, according to the authors.
Using the tools of population genetics and a worldwide database of 35,000 modern DNA samples, the researchers investigated the genetic legacy of early European farmers based on the fact that six of the 24 early European farmers are from a lineage that is now extremely rare in Europe and around the world.
At least 8 percent of the early farmers belonged to the N1a lineage, according to the researchers who estimate the range was between 8 and 42 percent.
Even this conservative estimate of 8 percent stands in stark contrast to the current percentage of central Europeans who belong to the N1a lineage -- 0.2 percent. This discrepancy suggests that these early farmers did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern Central Europeans, the authors say.
"It's interesting that a potentially minor migration of people into Central Europe had such a huge cultural impact," said Forster.
Small pioneer groups may have carried farming into new areas of Europe, the authors suggest. Once farming had taken hold, the surrounding hunter-gatherers could have adapted the new culture and then outnumbered the original farmers, diluting their N1a frequency to the low modern level. A range of archeological research supports different aspects of this hypothesis, the authors say.
Alternatively, a different population may have replaced the early farmers in Central Europe, eliminating most of the N1a types, but archaeological evidence for this scenario is scant, according to the authors.
###
Wolfgang Haak, Barbara Bramanti, Guido Brandt, Marc Tänzer, Kurt Werner Alt and Joachim Burger at Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz in Mainz, Germany; Peter Forster, Shuichi Matsumura and Colin Renfrew at University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK; Richard Villems at Tartu University in Tartu, Estonia; Detlef Gronenborn at Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum in Mainz, Germany. This study was supported by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF)
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I love to drink me some of that KnowledgeWhiskey, yeah! That's some sure potent stuff. What's the proof on that bottle? At least 86. Right?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Originally posted by akoben08: I'm not using "Sub-Ssahran" as Chimu, Brace et al do. Im just asking if thats the only recognised African type among the Natufian? Or is the "Eurasian" in fact the other African variant i.e. the elongated type found in North Africa.
Interesting question. Prior to the Natufian [actually named after the town in Palestine where the remains were found], the skeletal remains of Isreal have characterestics more typical of Western Eurasians - very narrow nose opening, high nose ridge, flat [back of] heads [not elongated], little to no prognathism.
Natufians had *very* wide nose openings, with low ridges, elongated back of the head, and substantial prognathism, which all characterise what Keita calls the 'broad faced' feature set.
At this time these characteristics are relatively uncommon in Europe, however post Natufian, they will soon appear again in Greece.
It was anthropologist Larry Angel [Keita's professor] who suggested in the 70's that neolithic greece was peopled in part by settlers from Nile Valley Africa.
Angel's approach, like Keita's was a bit dry and cerebral.
It is perhaps for this reason that [like Keita], he was never refuted and never -attacked- by Eurocentrists in the manner of Bernal [Black Athena], for example.
But they are saying largely the same things about Ancient Greece. [/qb]
quote:I remember an exchange with Chimu (under the name Salassin) tried to “prove” the Natufians weren’t black by quoting Brace saying they only had "whips" of Sub Saharan. That’s why I wanted some clarification. But I'm a lot clearer now from reading the various posts. I’ve never really gone in-depth with the Natufians.
You should.
When the Natufians were 1st discovered in Palestine, they were referred to as a 'savage race of negro cannibals'.
Then evidence mounted over the decades that this was the source of agriculture and "civilisation" in SouthWest Asia, and thence Europe.
The only sore-point for the European scholars of that time, was that they were found in the "Holy Land" and not in sub-sahara where they belonged.
Natufians are the ultimate "black sheep" of Eurocentric family history.
They are the skeletans in the closet.
Anytime you see the Eurocentrist trying to explain them away, you are in for quite a laugh.
It is to witness someone trying to piece back together a world view that has been shattered.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I think I love to drink me some of that KnowledgeWhiskey, yeah! That's some sure potent stuff. What's the proof on that bottle? At least 86. Right?
What? Problem? Be specific. Elaborate on your statement, you have a disagreement with something I posted? Let it be known. Thanks.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago."
^^^^ If your problem is with the above statement, well yes I disagree with it as well. It's a misnomer I know agriculture didn't originate in the middle East.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Slow your roll. He wasn't criticising you.
^^^^^Oh, hmm well could've fooled me, its seemed like he was. Thanks for the clarification though professor Rasol.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: "The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago."
^^^^ If your problem is with the above statement, well yes I disagree with it as well. It's a misnomer I know agriculture didn't originate in the middle East.
Calm down, lol.. It's just that this (your above post on the emergence of skin color in Europe) is old news (posted before numerous times) No need to bust a vain over it. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only question is how do the Natufian remains relate to those of Egypt?? And what about the Sinai that connects the Levant to Egypt?-- any remains or studies done in that area??
I recall Bar Yosef trying to disconnect the Natufians from Africa and instead claim them as indigenous Eurasians. How could this be?
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: "The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago."
^^^^ If your problem is with the above statement, well yes I disagree with it as well. It's a misnomer I know agriculture didn't originate in the middle East.
Calm down, lol.. It's just that this (your above post on the emergence of skin color in Europe) is old news (posted before numerous times) No need to bust a vain over it.
Oh ok, I apologize to the thread for the repetitiveness. I just wanted to make a little correlation with the Neolithic Skeletons which were lactose intolerant.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: My only question is how do the Natufian remains relate to those of Egypt?? And what about the Sinai that connects the Levant to Egypt?-- any remains or studies done in that area??
I recall Bar Yosef trying to disconnect the Natufians from Africa and instead claim them as indigenous Eurasians. How could this be?
I believe the correlation between Natufians and those of pre-dynastic Egypt(as I've read before in many previous threads) can pretty much be answered by Lawrence Angel.
J. Lawrence Angel Journal of Human Evolutiom 1972 1, Pg 307
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of body size one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....".
As for Bar Yosef disconnecting the Natufians from Africa, this is preposterous if we read the words of Cris Ehret et al.
A Conversation with Christopher Ehret Christopher Ehret, UCLA Interviewed by WHC Co-editor Tom Laichas
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.
And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what about the Sinai that connects the Levant to Egypt?-- any remains or studies done in that area??
Indeed that's something I'd like to know, is there any anthropology from the 'near east' before the Natufian period as well?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far I have not heard anything significant from the Sinai area let alone during that time period.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Oh ok, I apologize to the thread for the repetitiveness. I just wanted to make a little correlation with the Neolithic Skeletons which were lactose intolerant.
And how the heck do you determine lactose tolerance with skeletal remains??
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2007) — The first direct evidence that early Europeans were unable to digest milk has been found by scientists at UCL (University College London) and Mainz University.
In a study, published in the journal 'PNAS', the team shows that the gene that controls our ability to digest milk was missing from Neolithic skeletons dating to between 5840 and 5000 BC. However, through exposure to milk, lactose tolerance evolved extremely rapidly, in evolutionary terms. Today, it is present in over ninety per cent of the population of northern Europe and is also found in some African and Middle Eastern populations but is missing from the majority of the adult population globally.
"This is just one part of the picture researchers are gathering about lactose tolerance and the origins of Europeans. Next on the list is why there is such disparity in lactose tolerance between populations. It's striking, for example, that today around eighty per cent of southern Europeans cannot tolerate lactose even though the first dairy farmers in Europe probably lived in those areas. Through computer simulations and DNA testing we are beginning to get glimpses of the bigger early European picture."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ But what has that got to do with the Natufians? And what about animal domestication in Northeast Africa and the Levant? Didin't these people consume the milk of their herds?
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a drinking man, prefer good Barbados rum. But now, KnowledgeWhiskey, is my new drink. What's better than a shot (or three) of knowledge?
You posted some heady material on Natufians. Bravo, well done, kudos, great job, good work. Also fine excellent contributions in other threads. A newbie like you carries our work forward and with breath of fresh air source materials.
So potent is KnowledgeWhiskey that the liquor in the bottle must be at least 86 proof (43%) implying aging in casks for 10 years (extra old) -- you're no beginner in African studies.
Capice Maurice?
P.S. What kind of cigars smoke with KnowledgeWhiskey? Why, TaNzania filler with Kameroun wrapper of course!
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I think I love to drink me some of that KnowledgeWhiskey, yeah! That's some sure potent stuff. What's the proof on that bottle? At least 86. Right?
What? Problem? Be specific. Elaborate on your statement, you have a disagreement with something I posted? Let it be known. Thanks.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ But what has that got to do with the Natufians? And what about animal domestication in Northeast Africa and the Levant? Didin't these people consume the milk of their herds?
I didn't say it had anything to do with the Natufians. I said the point in me posting the genes that effect skin color, passing relatively recently, and I found it kind of correlating when I read about Neolithic skeletons from around the same time of the loss of pigmentation in Europeans.
You ask a good question. I also found it kind of weird, since animal domestication and farming began in Africa, how come Africans can't tolerate lactose? Also 80% of Southern Europeans can not tolerate lactose, although being in the place of the earliest possible dairy farmers.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: "The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago."
^^^^ If your problem is with the above statement, well yes I disagree with it as well. It's a misnomer I know agriculture didn't originate in the middle East.
Calm down, lol.. It's just that this (your above post on the emergence of skin color in Europe) is old news (posted before numerous times) No need to bust a vain over it.
Oh ok, I apologize to the thread for the repetitiveness. I just wanted to make a little correlation with the Neolithic Skeletons which were lactose intolerant.
No need to apologize since you DO put fourth good information, I was just letting you know and that's what I thought al takuri's reply was in response to (assuming it to be sarcasm). Though now I'm not sure and will just refrain from comment. Keep up the good work though and don't get discouraged or too defensive. I'm sure most appreciate your efforts, including those in this thread.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It's striking, for example, that today around eighty per cent of southern Europeans cannot tolerate lactose even though the first dairy farmers in Europe probably lived in those areas."
^^^ The above statement can possibly interpreted as the relatively recent neolithic and beyond, admixture(E3b1) Benin hbs and others, into Southern Europeans, from the Natufian farmers.
But the question still stands, as to why Africans are lactose intolerant, albeit being first farmers? Maybe, since Europeans skin color is due to loss of Vitamin D in their diets, and they had to find other ways to absorb Vitamin D, Europeans developed the gene for tolerance, along with becoming fully cold adapted and acquiring pale skin? Since Africans never had to adapt to loss of Vitamin D, and were able to absorb Vitamin D from the Sun, perhaps Africans didn't drink much milk? Today Africans still drink milk, albeit being intolerant, perhaps these first farmers in Africa, just drank moderately. Not as much as Europeans, when farming was spread to Europe?
Dr Mark Thomas, UCL Biology, said: "The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that's evolved in Europeans in the recent past. Without the enzyme lactase, drinking milk in adulthood causes bloating and diarrhoea. Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood yet, they probably include: the continuous supply of milk compared to the boom and bust of seasonal crops; its nourishing qualities; and the fact that it's uncontaminated by parasites, unlike stream water, making it a safer drink. All in all, the ability to drink milk gave some early Europeans a big survival advantage."Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: I didn't say it had anything to do with the Natufians. I said the point in me posting the genes that effect skin color, passing relatively recently, and I found it kind of correlating when I read about Neolithic skeletons from around the same time of the loss of pigmentation in Europeans.
I thought Europeans began to lose their pigmentation before the Neolithic..
quote:You ask a good question. I also found it kind of weird, since animal domestication and farming began in Africa, how come Africans can't tolerate lactose? Also 80% of Southern Europeans can not tolerate lactose, although being in the place of the earliest possible dairy farmers.
You seem to be speaking in generalist terms. Not all Africans are lactose intolerant as can be seen among cattle nomad groups from the Dinka to the Masai and Tutsi whose diet consists primarily of the milk of their herds.
The same can be said of Asians who are stereotypically thought of as lactose intolerant but herding nomadic peoples from Mongolia and Tibet are obviously not.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote:And what about the Sinai that connects the Levant to Egypt?-- any remains or studies done in that area??
Indeed that's something I'd like to know, is there any anthropology from the 'near east' before the Natufian period as well?
I guess the below statement answers my above question as to what were the remains from the 'middle east' prior to the Natufian.
Originally posted by rasol
quote:Interesting question. Prior to the Natufian [actually named after the town in Palestine where the remains were found], the skeletal remains of Isreal have characterestics more typical of Western Eurasians - very narrow nose opening, high nose ridge, flat [back of] heads [not elongated], little to no prognathism.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic