posted
Hi The researchers I cited are well established Africanists. They know where Nubia and Egypt began. If they say the Natufians came from Nubia, how can we deny their accuracy.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that the problem here is that MOST people do not realize that Nubia and Nubian are relatively modern terms that were not known by the ancient Egyptians:
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH DOUG M WITH THIS COMMENT.
Clyde Winters wrote:
quote: The researchers I cited are well established Africanists. They know where Nubia and Egypt began. If they say the Natufians came from Nubia, how can we deny their accuracy.
I must first start here by saying that with all due respect to Mr. Clyde Winters I personally respect your hard work and the numerous contributions you have made towards getting the truth about African History. I will have to say that as a student of African History myself the response is unacceptable in my humble opinion, I say this because as a memeber to the Afrikan American community I see a lot of students who are walking around calling themselves Nubians and when I debate them as to the authenticity of the word they are astonished to find out that the Name doesn't go as far back in history as we have been told I show then numerous writings from the ancients where the name simply isn't their. I cannot accept that If a Africanist so called expert says so then it must be so, African People are being challenged on numerous areas when we make our claims about our Ancestors past and Africans can't defend sincere questions with answers such as " The Africanist said so then it must be so " that type of attitude will put African people in a LOSING position, we have to get the facts in order and work with what we KNOW and have evidence to support when we make our claims.
This opinion of mine is not meant as attack on any persons scholarships,educational achievements or hard earned credentials. This point of view is just someone who seeks to find the truth based on what is known with evidence to support the claims and not what any so called expert whether Eurocentric or Afrocentric said.
posted
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....". Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Hi The researchers I cited are well established Africanists. They know where Nubia and Egypt began. If they say the Natufians came from Nubia, how can we deny their accuracy.
Hi.
But face facts, Nubia is a modern short hand term used to classify a broad group of people from VARIOUS tribes, clans and ethnicities over a LONG period of time and therefore has NOTHING to do with the names that these individuals, tribes and clans used for THEMSELVES at any given point in time. Case in point, did the American Indians call themselves American Indians 1000 years ago? Did the Indians in India call themselves Indians 4000 years ago? Did Africans in Africa call themselves Africans 4000 years ago? NO. All of these terms were introduced when Europeans FIRST started spreading out and exploring the world. These terms were useful for THEM to distinguish people from various regions, without any DEEP understanding for the TRUE ethnic history and cultures of the peoples involved. Hence, the term EUROCENTRIC, since it is all based on the point of view of EUROPEANS, not the NATIVES. THAT must be of importance since you CLAIM to be against Eurocentrism.... My only point.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, what term do you want to use to describe the African influence in the Eurasian Neolithic?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: 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....".
The point is that this quote shows how Europeans, even while supporting the theories of human migrations from Africa, have employed a wide range of "catch-phrases" for "Black African", ie Bushmanoid or Ethiopic, both of which are catch phrases for Africans south of Egypt, which implies Egypt was NOT "black African". How can people get to the Near East FROM Africa WITHOUT going through Egypt and leaving their genetic imprint there as well? Therefore, Nubian, Bushmanoid, Ethiopic and even "Black African" are all nonsense at this level of anthropological understanding. THIS is why we need to have a better understanding of biological diversity and names, since using Eurocentric terms will CAUSE more confusion than anything else. What he should have said is that these people who we call Natufians probably originated in North East Africa, around some certain geographic area, since the skeletal markers of Natufian remains are closest to those of this region. Which fits in with the idea of Africans being diverse and NOT typified by only BIG lips, big noses or any other stereotypical feature. Some Africans have these features, some dont and it all goes by clinal variation, ie regional adaptation to environmental and genetic circumstances.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether "Nubia" as a term itself was known in antiquity or not, has no bearings on the pre-existence of the Nile Valley inhabitants, whom this term is applied to. This is what needs to be understood, and I hope that is the case!
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Whether "Nubia" as a term itself was known in antiquity or not, has no bearings on the pre-existence of the Nile Valley inhabitants, whom this term is applied to. This is what needs to be understood, and I hope that is the case!
You and me both, Supercar! Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hitep2u wrote: "This opinion of mine is not meant as attack on any persons scholarships,educational achievements or hard earned credentials. This point of view is just someone who seeks to find the truth based on what is known with evidence to support the claims and not what any so called expert whether Eurocentric or Afrocentric said."
This statement is illogical, all argument is based on three elements premises, conclusion and sources.One makes a premise and then cites evidence/sources to support the reliability of the premise. The source should be informed. I stated that the authorities supporting a Nubian origin for the Natufians have done research in Africa and therefore qualified to make the statements I have attributed to them. This is the proper argumentation for any proposition. You can not have an argument without using the opinions of informed people.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I stated that the authorities supporting a Nubian origin for the Natufians have done research in Africa and therefore qualified to make the statements I have attributed to them. This is the proper argumentation for any proposition. You can not have an argument without using the opinions of informed people.
I can understand Nubian origin of ancestors of the Natufians, but can you please direct me to the source(s) which specifically states that the Natufians themselves are directly from Nubia.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Whether "Nubia" as a term itself was known in antiquity or not, has no bearings on the pre-existence of the Nile Valley inhabitants, whom this term is applied to. This is what needs to be understood, and I hope that is the case!
It is understood as nonsense, much in the way modern native Americans call themselves Indians. Yes it is true that INdian is a term used to describe people native to NOrth and South America, but it is a VERY broad and generic term that is not condusive to understanding the small populations, tribes and their relationships in the periods prior to their discovery by Europeans. The same goes here. Like I said, you could JUST say that the Natufians bear a strong resemblance to populations along the Nile. The other problematic issue is the geography and whether this term "nubian" is a reference to a SPECIFIC location or really a generic term for "Black African", as opposed to the "White African" north of the Sahara. Both of which have been shown to be purely nonsense and NOT based on any sort of true anthropology. ALL Africans in the ancient periods were "black" and white skin is NOT native to Africans from thousands of years ago. All people migrated from Africa, but you dont hear them say that the first people from Africa were Ethiopans. Why? Because Ethiopia as a cultural, tribal or national entity did not exist. Therefore, they purely use dna markers and haplogroups to identify the lineages of the people involved, without any MODERN socio-cultural terms that are meaningless in reference to ancient populations. The same goes for the Natufians. It would be better to say that the Natufians were AFricans, since there is NOTHING else needed to provide further clarification. That is, unless you need to reinforce the idea that ALL ancient Africans were NOT "black" by using terms like "Nubian" as a catch phrase for black sub saharan populations. I would rather you jest talk in terms of haplogroups and lineages as well as migration routes and specific locations in Africa from which these populations came. It is hard to see how these "Nubian" populations would have gotten to the Levant, without passing through the Nile. If they did, then they must also have left markers of their presence along the Nile. Meaning, that there must have been the same markers, if not more, of Nubian ancestry amongst the people of the NIle and the areas of Nubia. IF that is the case, then what differentiates these populations? Furthermore, if the Nubians themselves are an extension of sub saharan Africa and then they extended that to the Levant, then why not just call them ALL Africans, which I suggested in the beginning? It pretty much stands to argue that ALL migrations of the Neolithic and earlier would have been from Eastern and Southern regions of Africa TO the north, therefore making ALL of these people African, with no need to distinguish between Subsaharan and Northern Africa, since the Saharan desert did NOT exist prior to the Neolithic. Therefore, the mix of populations is not DISTINGUISHED by Nubian vs Non Nubian(ie. non subsaharan) since this "boundary" did not exist and did not stop "sub-saharan" from making it to the Levant. This is the point I am trying to make.
I am not against the term Nubia in a general sense, but I am against using it out of context in ancient terms, since the word Nubia came about as a way of DISTINGUISHING or DEMARKING the beginning of populations called "black" versus populations who were not black along the lower Nile, which is pure ethnocentric B.S. Read the citations carefully and you will see the B.S. in the sense of words like Bushmanoid or Ethiopic, which have no meaning other than "black African" as if ALL Africans werent black at that point in time.
While it admits that the Europeans who uncovered Kush and "Nubia" were racist, it NEVER challenges the idea that the Egyptians were a "White" race, reinforcing the idea of blacks ONLY being in Nubia and ONLY coming to Egypt in the 25th dynasty. So, racism in Egyptology did NOT start with Nubia, it started with Egypt itself, with Nubia as a dividing line or "race" between black and White Africans. THAT is why I refuse to use such terms as definitive historical references to the anthropology of the populations of the Nile. They were ALL black Africans and the variation between them was much more complex than JUST a simple mix between "black" Nubians and "white" mediterraneans. That is why you have to be careful when you use some of these anthropological studies, since they REINFORCE the old notions of "white" and "black" Africa, which are based PURELY on Eurocentric observation and not FACTS.
Such studies as these imply that there is an ancient history of substantial migrations of non Africans into the Nile Valley, enough to disrupt or replace the gene flow of Africans from South to North, since this has been the PRIMARY flow of populations in this part of Africa since humanity was born. Once again, it uses an artificial boundary, the Sahara, to distinguish between populations, when NO SUCH boundary existed in the time. So, North South or Southeast to Northeast and Northwest gene flow was the NORM for ALL populations in Africa, which means all Africans today are descended from Eastern Africa. So, Duh, this paper is only reinforcing what we knew ALL ALONG, that ALL Africans share a common heritage and that there IS NO separation between ancient populations along the lower or upper Nile and populations elsewhere in Africa. The "in situ" microevolution that they seem to be arguing against seems to me to somehow represent a set of NON AFrican features. Which of course is a pure contradiction, if there ever was one. If a population starts in Africa migrates to another part of Africa and has some sort of microevolution , "in situ", it is STILL African and STILL related to other Africans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Whether "Nubia" as a term itself was known in antiquity or not, has no bearings on the pre-existence of the Nile Valley inhabitants, whom this term is applied to. This is what needs to be understood, and I hope that is the case
It is understood as nonsense,..
Only by YOU; any perceptive person knows better!
The Romans may have used the term generically for regions beyond Kemet's southern nome, and various folks in contemporary times may have followed suite, even if the ancient Egyptians and the Upper Nile Valley inhabitants beyond Egypt's southern nome never applied 'nub' [the original term, meaning gold] as such. The point is that, this doesn't change the fact that people were already living in those regions, prior to the generic dubbing of the place as "Nubia", first by the Romans. So the people dubbed as "Nubians" existed; that the term hasn't always been in use, as it now is, doesn't change this fact.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Doug won't address a simple question as to what to call Africans of the southern Nile Valley, but he writes really long, hard to read posts which pretty much drag us off the central point in contention.
TSD tells us that Nubian culture and people didn't exist 'yet', but declines to tell us 'when' they did come into existence, or what quantifies or qualifies their existence?
I possibly don't agree with Dr. Winters about some of the relevant points here, but he is getting the better of this thread in my humble opinion, if only because he has two critics - one of whom is missing the point, the other of whom is not really addressing it.
For me this means - the discourse hasn't even reached the point where I can discuss with the thread author a possible disagreement - because we are stuck and intent on arguing over the superficial and so evading the substantial ->
I'll try once more, for both Doug and TSD:
What is the best why to describe the African contribution to the Neolithic?
We know how the thread author describes it - it's your turn now.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what AREA and WHAT groups in particular are we talking about? Does Mr Winters REALLY mean that they came from somewhere between the 1st and 5th cataract of the Nile? What about the western Deserts, eastern deserts or areas in what is now Ethiopia and Somalia?
Read carefully and you will see that Nubia is being used as a catch phrase for "black african".
quote: 1)Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Lavant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area. Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. The founders of civilization in South West Asia were the Anu people, archaeologists call Natufians. By 13,000 BC, according to J.D. Clark ("The origins of domestication in Ethiopia", Fifth Panafrican Congress of prehistory and quaternary Studies, Nairobi,1977) the Natufians were collecting grasses which later became domesticated crops in Southwest Asia. In Palestine the Natufians established intensive grass collection. The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea. 2) The Natufians took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. The Natufians practiced evulsion of the incisors the same as Bantu people and inhabitants of the Saharan fringes. 3)The modern civilizations of the Middle East were created by the Natufians.Since the Natufians came from Nubia, they can not be classified as Euorpeans. This shows that there were no European types in the Middle East Between 20,000-4,000BP. Moreover, we clearly see the continuity between African culture from Nubia to the Levant.
In my mind the items in bold indicate that the "Natufians" were people from Africa in General around Ethiopa and somehwere south of the Sahara (1 and 2). But 3), Nubia, is being used, as I said before, as a delimiter for African, which was ALREADY stated in 1 and 2, thereby stressing the sub-saharan markers and rendering the need to use Nubia as a reinforcement of "non European derived African" as unecessary. Therefore, the Natufians could be from anywhere between North Africa, Ethiopia and the Sudan, which is a LARGE area and NOT just Nubian. This is especially so since the papers cited are more making the claim for the antiquity of Ethiopian, not "Nubian" agriculture in Africa.
I also understand what you guys are saying, but the wording of some of these papers just is annoying.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already said that they should be more specific and not refer to a broad group of tribes as if it were a single ethnic group or clan, which YOU yourself have noted elsewhere. They should have said that "Natufians bear markers similar to Africans from the Nile Valley and Ethiopia in the Neolithic". Pure and simple and to the point. All that extra wording and throwing in Nubia just to delineate "blacks" from "whites" or true Africans/sub saharan Africans from theoretical non Africans or mixed Africans is not necessary.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi This debate has lasted far too long. Because of the schema of many people in this debate. Schema relates to how we structure representations from the natural environment in the brain. We have been conditioned to accept the idea that if we learned a particular thing while attending school that which we have learned is a fact. We learned in school that the Natufians founded civilization in the Middle East. We assume that since Arabic speaking people live in the Middle East, the Natufians most have looked like the Arabs who live in the area today. This is a logical deduction, but it may not relate to reality. Due to this mind set, when I said that the research makes it clear that the Natufians originated in that part of Africa we call Nubia today, and are therefore Nubians, some of you objected to this proposition,eventhough the premise was supported by archaeological evidence. Objection to this proposition appears to relate to the mind set of some people based upon what they learned in school (i.e., their knowledge base), that people from Nubia have contributed nothing to world history. I don't understand why it is so hard to accept the origination of the Natufians in Nubia. This is just like saying the French like Jazz. Granted the French play Jazz music and like Jazz. In the same breath I could say that Jazz comes from America. To be more specific I could say that Jazz was popularized in New orleans. So Jazz is both an American musical form, that specifically was developed in New Orleans. Thusly, when I say that the Natufians came from Africa. This is a true statement. And when I say the Natufians according to some researchers came from that part of Africa, we call today Nubia I am specifically situating the place of origin for the Natufians in a specific part of Africa. The inability to understand the words written on this page is therefore the result of the schema,and mind set of some posters herein, who believe, based on their knowledge base, that people from that part of Africa we call Nubia contributed nothing to world history except as slaves for the Greeks and Romans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ausar can you please close this thread? The said author of this thread still continues to run around in circles and not post any proof that Natufians came from Nubia nor that Nubians founded Middle Eastern civilization. Thats said, this thread was uninformative and full of non-substantiated claims and misrepresentations.
posted
Cutting to the chase: I agree that Africans and specifically Black Africans from the Nile Valley contributed to the Neolithic.
I personally wouldn't use the term 'founded' because it might imply only Africans contributed to the Neolithic.
But I would also equally reject the notion of the Neolithic originating in the "Middle East", or among Asiatics - which is the standard discourse and is *also wrong* as it obscures the role played by Africa.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: The said author of this thread still continues to run around in circles and not post any proof that Natufians came from Nubia .
The author hasn't, but I have. If you want me to repost it, just ask.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi This is untrue the thread is informative.I have presented "proof" in support of this claim. I cited three sources Clark, Wendorf and Ehret who claimed that the Natufians came from Nubia. Up to now no one has presented any sources disconfirming the Nubian origin of the Natufians.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: The said author of this thread still continues to run around in circles and not post any proof that Natufians came from Nubia .
The author hasn't, but I have. If you want me to repost it, just ask.
That data indicates that Natufians were sub-Saharan influenced by people from Nubia, but not that Natufians came from Nubia. The author is getting very Horemheb-like with making assumptions without providing direct proof.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Hi This is untrue the thread is informative.I have presented "proof" in support of this claim. I cited three sources Clark, Wendorf and Ehret who claimed that the Natufians came from Nubia. Up to now no one has presented any sources disconfirming the Nubian origin of the Natufians.
No, you cling to the idea of Nubia, as stated in your original post as being REPRESENTATIVE of sub saharan Africans. My point is that sub-saharan is a MEANINGLESS term. MOST if not ALL Africans were black prior to and during the Neolithic, including Africans in the NORTH of Africa. Therefore, my point is that the DISTINCTIONS between North Africans and SubSaharan Africans as TYPIFIED by North Africans having more European or Near Eastern lineages did NOT exist in the neolithic. In fact, YOUR OWN POST proves this, by showing that the people of the Levant were closer to "sub-saharan" (whatever THAT means) Africans than Europeans or other West Asians. Therefore, it is clear that AFRICA was part the source of Neolithic populations in the Levant and there is NOTHING scientific about sub-saharan or Nubian in terms of identifying or classifying African populations during the neolithic. If you want to be ANTRHOPOLOGICALLY accurate, you would stick to LINEAGES and HAPLOGROUPS or other biogenetic MARKERS for distinguishing these groups rather than outdated racial terms like "sub-saharan" or "Nubian", since NEITHER are valid as racial terms. The BOTTOM LINE, whether you see it or not, is that during the Neolithic the populations from deep in Africa all the way to the Levant shared a much closer biological affinity due to gene migration FROM Africa. THAT should be enough in and of itself and is clear based on the evidence you posted. My only objection is using "Nubians" as a boundary or border population marking the beginning of "true African" Africa versus "other" Africans, as if they were DIFFERENT during the neolithic. Your own post shows that they were NOT different.
I would like to see where Ehret points to Nubia as the source of Ethiopian agriculture. My reading has shown his theory to be that early agriculture was present in Ethiopia FIRST, with POSSIBLE influence from A-Group or C-Group "Nubians", not the other way around.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That data indicates that Natufians were sub-Saharan influenced by people from Nubia but not that Natufians came from Nubia.
How would they be "influenced" biologically by people from Nubia, unless Nubians [defined here as people from Nubia] migrated there?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That data indicates that Natufians were sub-Saharan influenced by people from Nubia but not that Natufians came from Nubia.
How would they be "influenced" biologically by people from Nubia, unless Nubians [defined here as people from Nubia] migrated there?
As stated in published data, Natufians were a Levantine people influenced skeletally by people from Nubia and acquired their partly sub-Saharan morphology through interbreeding. It is never stated that Natufians migrated from Nubia.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As stated in published data, Natufians were a Levantine people influenced skeletally by people from Nubia and acquired their partly sub-Saharan morphology through interbreeding.
It is never stated that Natufians migrated from Nubia.
Natufians are certainly levantines by definition -because, that's where Natuf is - in the Levant.
Just as Nubians are Africans, because Nubia is in Africa.
The question is, how would "natufians" be influenced skeletally by interbreedings from "nubians" - unless Nubians MIGRATED to Wadi al Natuf?
What, did they ship their sperm by airmail or something?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As stated in published data, Natufians were a Levantine people influenced skeletally by people from Nubia and acquired their partly sub-Saharan morphology through interbreeding.
It is never stated that Natufians migrated from Nubia.
Natufians are certainly levantines by definition -because, that's where Natuf is - in the Levant.
Just as Nubians are Africans, because Nubia is in Africa.
The question is, how would "natufians" be influenced skeletally by interbreedings from "nubians" - unless Nubians MIGRATED to Wadi al Natuf?
What, did they ship their sperm by airmail or something?
My God, I can't believe how this forum is, of course there was a migration out of Africa into the Levant. Yes there was apparently interbreeding between in coming Nubians and Levantine peoples, that in itself does *NOT* mean *NATUFIANS* migrated from Nubia into the Levant. Mr Winters said Natufians are Nubians which isn't true
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Triple Stage Darkness quote: " As stated in published data, Natufians were a Levantine people influenced skeletally by people from Nubia and acquired their partly sub-Saharan morphology through interbreeding. It is never stated that Natufians migrated from Nubia. "
Please state a source for this claim.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:TSD: Yes there was apparently interbreeding between *in coming Nubians* and Levantine peoples,
quote:that in itself does *NOT* mean *NATUFIANS* migrated from Nubia into the Levant.
Really?
So these incoming "Nubians" are distinct from the Natufian archeology group?
What would that distinction be?
For example - can you show us what would be a 'nubian' migrant to 'natuf' as opposed to a 'natufian'?
Can you tell us what the primary biological affiliation of Natufians would be - if not Nubian?
quote:TSD writes: I can't believe how this forum is?
I'm surprised at how easily exasperated you are, when asked questions that force you to reconsider your root assumptions.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
The early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find other people already in the area.
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. - Christopher Ehret.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well this topic is very interesting in my opinion, I would like to add that I think the Ancient land of Kemet called Ta Seti is a NOME of Kemet to the south that houses a gold land called Nub.t or Ta Nub.
I think the people who Eurocentric historians are calling Nubians the rival Civilization of Kemet to the South is actually some nomadic groups of encroachers who from time to time wander within the NOME of Ta Seti. I can support my theory with evidence if anyone is interested. This is why I am in total agreement with Doug M that we should use the word AFRICAN as one of the best words to generalize or describe the tropically adapted people who are native to the continent of Africa. I would also reject the use of the word Nubian or sub Saharan to generalize Africans, I am in agreement with Doug M that I think those two words are inappropriate.
DOUG M I think your points are extremely accurate and as a lay person I would easily comprehend the idea that the Natufians were originally from Africa, North East Africa. It would also be easier to say Natufians were indigenous Africans who traveled to the Levant. I would like to suggest that we might come to the conclusion that the Annu or Anu people have been found to be a group of tropically adapted people (Native Africans) who migrated to the Levant from the area of North East Africa. Such a idea fits exactly into the history of Kemet because based on what has been observed about the behavior of the Natufians is that they were skilled farmers and archers hence the name Ta Seti being a early NOME of Kemet that housed skilled farmers and archers, and not a Ancient so called sub-Saharan rival Civilization to Kemet.
posted
And those great civilization inculcating "nubians," "natufians" or "neolithic negros" or whatever (no point in getting caught up in some verbal argument), left Africa with a well-developed body of knowledge encompassing agriculture, language, arts, culture, mansonry stoneworking began in the stone age) and sciences, and they developed civilization in the levant and Arabia.
I really don't think anyone is debating that such an event or series of events occurred. That point is moot. What I note is that verbal disagreement remain over what names they were called.
And the Lion! would just remind those "sophisticated" skeptics on this board once again, the underlying theme of all this discussion.
That those natufian nubian neolithic negros were the ancient cushites! The creators of the great band of civilization spanning the nile valley right onto India.
The Lion!
Posts: 236 | From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lion!: That those natufian nubian neolithic negros were the ancient cushites! The creators of the great band of civilization spanning the nile valley right onto India.
The Lion!
Uhh.. NO
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like to add that I think the Ancient land of Kemet called Ta Seti is a NOME of Kemet to the south that houses a gold land called Nub.t or Ta Nub.
This is correct.
quote:we should use the word AFRICAN as one of the best words to generalize or describe the tropically adapted people who are native to the continent of Africa.
This too is sound, however we are still required to be more specific, about what/which anthropology groups migrated from Africa to the levant.
Larry Angel speaks of the precursors of the Badarians, Ehret references the Mashbians and the Sudanese Neolithic. Ehret locates Eastern Sudan [Nubia by the way], as a possible origin point of the Afrasan language family.
quote:I would also reject the use of the word Nubian or sub Saharan to generalize Africans
I agree with this as well, and Kushite too is a misleading term.
One point missed by many *so far* in this discussion is that Nubia is not entirely a generalistion with regards to the Natufians:
There *is* a specific geography called Nubia, and this *is* cited by by scholars as one of the roots of Neolithic culture - specifically Natufian.
quote:It would also be easier to say Natufians were indigenous Africans who traveled to the Levant.
This would be partly correct:
There is actually a potentially interesting discussion to be had concerning to what degree the Natufians are essentially Nile Valley immigrants, West Asian natives, both, or only the synthesis of the two.
Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to be able to have that discussion in this thread, as there is now too much noise and distraction and off-point posturing.
Oh well, it was interesting, for a while.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea.
To the thread author: Can you provide us with a specific quote from Ehret's article?
quote:Originally posted by rasol: This would be partly correct:
There is actually a potentially interesting discussion to be had concerning to what degree the Natufians are essentially Nile Valley immigrants, West Asian natives, both, or only the synthesis of the two.
Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to be able to have that discussion in this thread, as there is now too much noise and distraction and off-point posturing.
Oh well, it was interesting, for a while.
The early Levantine populations need NOT be biologically distinct from African populations. Well, what would be wrong about saying that the Natufians themselves came from Nubia?
Let's take a look at one of the citations already presented:
"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." - Christopher Ehret.
There you have it. Even if the pre-existing Levantine populations weren't much biologically distinct from African populations, that they were there prior to the arrival of newly arrived groups from Africa, to give rise to what we call Natufians, should be acknowledged. This little piece of info, in my opinion, is what is diluted by the claim of Natufians having come from Nubia.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
What, did they ship their sperm by airmail or something?
Now, I must admit, that was a funny one.
No, that statement was very ignorant, he knew exactly what I meant. At any rate, Natufians didn't migrate from Nubia. That was my whole point. Ad-hominems, non-sequitirs and straw arguments are becoming the norm here.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small stature folk who spread agriculture throughout Nubia into the Red Sea.
To the thread author: Can you provide us with a specific quote from Ehret's article?
Thank you.
Just like Horemheb he presents no direct quotes of the said authors making these statements.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
What, did they ship their sperm by airmail or something?
Now, I must admit, that was a funny one.
No, that statement was very ignorant, he knew exactly what I meant. At any rate, Natufians didn't migrate from Nubia. That was my whole point. Ad-hominems, non-sequitirs and straw arguments are becoming the norm here.
Actually you seem to be engaging in the ad hominems "ignorant"(?), and it seems to be out of some frustration, which is why you didn't see the humor in my comment.
And no, I don't know what you mean, or what point you're trying to make.
Indeed, i'm still waiting for you to answer the questions placed to you earlier.
Frankly, this thread author is getting the better of you in this 'debate', if only because he maintains his composure, while you flounder about trying to attack him personally.
It's also obvious that you are carrying some sort of grudge from the past, which you need to check, because it is preventing you from being objective.
I respect you TSD but you may want to re-assess your strategy, this has not been a good 'showing' from you so far.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: This would be partly correct:
There is actually a potentially interesting discussion to be had concerning to what degree the Natufians are essentially Nile Valley immigrants, West Asian natives, both, or only the synthesis of the two.
Unfortunately, I don't think we are going to be able to have that discussion in this thread, as there is now too much noise and distraction and off-point posturing.
Oh well, it was interesting, for a while.
The early Levantine populations need NOT be biologically distinct from African populations. Well, what would be wrong about saying that the Natufians themselves came from Nubia?
Let's take a look at one of the citations already presented:
"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." - Christopher Ehret.
There you have it. Even if the pre-existing Levantine populations weren't much biologically distinct from African populations, that they were there prior to the arrival of newly arrived groups from Africa, to give rise to what we call Natufians, should be acknowledged. This little piece of info, in my opinion, is what is diluted by the claim of Natufians having come from Nubia.
That's how it's done Supercar.
Actually addressing the evidence provided.
Good reply.
I could add comment, but I hope the thread author will respond so we can continue a productive discussion.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
- The author of the thread quoted Holliday as saying Qazfeh was sub-Saharan African,ie, Negroid, but when asked to provide the exact quote he provided none.
- The author of the thread said essentially that Natufians migrated from Nubia into the Levant, but he provided no direct quotes of evidence for this. He cited Ehret on this and when asked to provide the exact quote he didn't
- The author of the thread said that Nubians founded Middle Eastern civilization, but once again showed no evidence to adduce this when asked.
Basically the author iof the thread has presented misrepresentations, half-truths, and fudged data as "evidence". Thats the discussion we should be having here, the rest is all non-sequitir. Thats why this thread is basically worthless.
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: Lets recap for clarity.
- The author of the thread quoted Holliday as saying Qazfeh was sub-Saharan African,ie, Negroid,
m2c.
Neither the author's quote of Holliday, nor your assessment of his quote are quite correct.
Where the author is incorrect: He mistakes Qazfeh hominids, who are 80 to 100 k years old with direct descendants of African people. They are not. The author mistakenly dated Qazfeh to the Neolithic and thus wrongly relates them to Natufians, and that is where he was in error.
Where TSD is incorrect: The author did not say anything about 'negroid' - that's your term. The author also warned you against putting words in his mouth, and that's what you are doing again.
Finally, the author did use sub-saharan to describe Qazfeh morphology affinity, and that is supported by
Holliday: The African-like affinities of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids....strongly suggest that equatorial Africa was the originating point for modern humanity.
Holliday does consider Qafzeh - morphologically African, and not morphologically European - it simply has to be understood that the Europeans he is comparing them to are Neanderthal, and that *all humans* even those of the Levant were originally morphologically African.
This is the whole point of his study.
I will quote some more from it, in a bit...
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The author of the thread said essentially that Natufians migrated from Nubia into the Levant, but he provided no direct quotes of evidence for this. He cited Ehret on this and when asked to provide the exact quote he didn't.
You are correct here, he should be able to provide a direct quote from Ehret.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the article back in 1979. After revisiting the article today I see that I had summarized the findings of all three authors (Wendorf, Clark and Ehret) in my post and found that Ehret claimed that the Natufian culture is related to other Nile Valley sites. Ehret did not claim that the Natufians came from Nubia specifically he said: "Then between approximately 10,000 and 9,000 BC intensive grass collection appeared suddenly in Palestine with the establishment of the Natufian culture and after 9000 BC begins to turn up in the archaeology of the Iranian fringe of Mesopotamia. The Ibero-Maurusian tool kit shows clear relationship to that of the cultures of Nubia associated with the earliest grass collection. The Natufian industry does not show such obvious links understandably since it arose 3000 or more years later and considerable change, could have taken place over such a span. But Natufian does have typological similarities with materials from some Northern Nile sites, and so again has apparent African connections".(p.163)
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rasol: Finally, the author did use sub-saharan to describe Qazfeh morphology affinity, and that is supported by
Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia
quote:Trie Qafzeh-Skhul hominids appear to cluster more closely with the sub-saharans
Here's the full conclusion from this study:
The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992). Since the Neandertals do not exhibit African-like body proportions, it is also consistent with the "two-population" model of the Levantine Upper Pleistocene, as well as the "Replacement" model for modern human origins—or perhaps an intermediate model (e.g., Brauer 1992; Smith 1994). These findings do not, however, support the hypothesis of local genetic continuity in the Levantine Upper Pleistocene, nor do they indicate that there was a single, highly variable population of humans inhabiting the region from 120-50 Kya. One important final conclusion to be drawn from this analysis concerns the center of the presumed single origin of modern humanity following the Replacement model. The early dates of Qafzeh and Skhul have led some to speculate that perhaps modern humans emerged first in Southwest Asia, and not Africa (e.g.. Waddle 1W). The African-like affinities of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids, however, argue against this possibility and strongly suggest that equatorial Africa was the original point for modern humans.
As the title and conclusion makes clear, the study is not PRIMARILY about the specific origins of the Neolithic Natufians.
Again, we need to understand the basic premises of modern RAO - recent african origin anthroplogy, as it relates to the Upper Paleolithic.
Everyone on earth is of upper paleolithic African origin - so, nothing in this study specifically relates natufians to africans, even if natufians were direct descendants of the Shilluk, or the Swedes for that matter....nothing in this study would show it.
Here's my bottom line: To advance knowledge of African history, we need a good grounding in science, and not 'centrisms.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I read the article back in 1979. After revisiting the article today I see that I had summarized the findings of all three authors (Wendorf, Clark and Ehret) in my post and found that Ehret claimed that the Natufian culture is related to other Nile Valley sites. Ehret did not claim that the Natufians came from Nubia specifically he said: "Then between approximately 10,000 and 9,000 BC intensive grass collection appeared suddenly in Palestine with the establishment of the Natufian culture and after 9000 BC begins to turn up in the archaeology of the Iranian fringe of Mesopotamia. The Ibero-Maurusian tool kit shows clear relationship to that of the cultures of Nubia associated with the earliest grass collection. The Natufian industry does not show such obvious links understandably since it arose 3000 or more years later and considerable change, could have taken place over such a span. But Natufian does have typological similarities with materials from some Northern Nile sites, and so again has apparent African connections".(p.163)
Thank you for providing the quote.
I do agree that it shows and African connection, I don't agree that it shows an African origin for Natufian. I doubt Ehret would agree that such a claim can be inferred from what was presented.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I read the article back in 1979. After revisiting the article today I see that I had summarized the findings of all three authors (Wendorf, Clark and Ehret) in my post and found that Ehret claimed that the Natufian culture is related to other Nile Valley sites. Ehret did not claim that the Natufians came from Nubia specifically he said: "Then between approximately 10,000 and 9,000 BC intensive grass collection appeared suddenly in Palestine with the establishment of the Natufian culture and after 9000 BC begins to turn up in the archaeology of the Iranian fringe of Mesopotamia. The Ibero-Maurusian tool kit shows clear relationship to that of the cultures of Nubia associated with the earliest grass collection. The Natufian industry does not show such obvious links understandably since it arose 3000 or more years later and considerable change, could have taken place over such a span. But Natufian does have typological similarities with materials from some Northern Nile sites, and so again has apparent African connections".(p.163)
Thank you for providing the quote.
I do agree that it shows and African connection, I don't agree that it shows an African origin for Natufian. I doubt Ehret would agree that such a claim can be inferred from what was presented.
Yep. African affiliation would have been GOOD enough.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Then between approximately 10,000 and 9,000 BC intensive grass collection appeared suddenly in Palestine with the establishment of the Natufian culture and after 9000 BC begins to turn up in the archaeology of the Iranian fringe of Mesopotamia. The Ibero-Maurusian tool kit shows clear relationship to that of the cultures of Nubia associated with the earliest grass collection. The Natufian industry does not show such obvious links understandably since it arose 3000 or more years later and considerable change, could have taken place over such a span. But Natufian does have typological similarities with materials from some Northern Nile sites, and so again has apparent African connections".(p.163) - Ehret
African connections that is both biological [direct ancestry] and cultural [e.g. language, not to mention new 'lithic' tools]!
"[The caves of Erq-el-Ahmar] . . . produced 132 individuals for Miss Garrod. All these Natufians share the same physical type, completely different from that of earlier Palestinians. They are short, about 160 cm.* and dolichocephalic. They were probably Cro-Magnoid Mediterraneans, presenting certain Negroid characteristics attributable to crossbreeding..." - Furon.
Hence, if the Natufians resembled tropical Africans, then this begs the question of what these "earlier Palestinians" might have looked like; after all, the Natufians are said to be different from them! I mean, we already have an idea of what the earliest 'generalized' moderns of the Levant could have looked like...
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My only point.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic