posted
I keep seeing people refer to the Neolithic as if it was an important time.
Im not well-versed in Anthropology. Culd someone explain to me it's importance??? Was it a period in which Africans "mixed" preceeding OOA populations and brought technologies to them???
Also alot of the population gentetics studies are from the Neolithic.
Could we delve into it???
Posts: 290 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We will have difficulty delving into it as long as we have a number of poster who enjoy just inventing history.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good topic, i too have wondered about the importance of the Neolithic. I guess it has something to do with the expansion or tech revolution during that Epoch.
Posts: 40 | From: Chicago | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arrow my question to is, becuase the people here have found evidence thats of a non-eurocentric source means that its afrocentric? I'm sure of africans had much more contribution to humanity than eurocentric views tell about them...Besides how do we know if these experts in ancient history and genetics aren't biased, meaning they would feel obligated to alter their research to fit thier views!
Posts: 40 | From: Chicago | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: I keep seeing people refer to the Neolithic as if it was an important time.
Neolithic.
Neo - new Lithics - stone artifacts
Refers to the transition between hunter gatherer lifestyles and the culture denoted by agriculture and animal domestication and the new tools associated with it.
One of the examples of new lithic technologies is pottery making.
Pottery is important because it provides a means for food and water [or milk] storage, which is crucial to the non-hunter gatherer lifestyle.
Before the Neolithic transition all humans essentially lived similarly to modern hunter gatherers found today in south america, southern and central africa, australia and elsewhere.
The Neolithisation process occurs 1st in Africa and Asia....the neolithic reached Europe by demic-diffusion [CL Brace], meaning immigrant populations, brought neolithic technology to the simple hunter/gatherer and cave dwelling peoples of Europe. The Neolithic 1st spread from Africa and Asia to southern Europe, and from Southern Europe to the North.
Therefore European 'civilisation' is of mixed Afro Asian, as well as European origin.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tee85: Wow that is interesting.
What caused Africa and Asia to expand to Europe??
Population overflow caused by the Neolithic.
Before the neolithic humans exist as small numbers of hunter gatherers dependant upon game and wild foodstuffs - there are not very many people.
With the advent of cattle domestication and agriculture - there is population expansion.
At this time NorthEast Africa is one of the most heavily populated places on Earth. Europe is relatively under populated.
Thus we can now understand that the neolithic is not only when African lineages [E3b] spread into Eurasia....it's also, 'why'.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
how long did the earliest civilization form after the migrantion? what was the earliest civilization...How far did this migrantion go? did it reach the Americas?
Posts: 40 | From: Chicago | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Nice answer, this is why people show respect, opposite to ridiculous claims such as Twa pygmies once ruling the world before THE GREAT WAVE! Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is some truth to the idea that the world was once populated by small pygmy like populations. In fact one of the most recent scientific controversies involves the idea of a new species of human that looked like a hobbit:
Whether or not everyone agrees on how to categorize these populations, there is no doubt that evidence of populations of small stature have been found all over the world. Part of the problem is that scientists and anthropologists give them different names, which makes the association with them as small people somewhat difficult. Most would say that the very first migrations out of Africa were of populations like the koi and san, who themselves are relatively small, along with other populations who are ancestors of modern pygmies. Many civilizations all over the world have depictions of these smaller people. The Champa in Asia were said to be small black people, the Anu in Africa and Asia are also identified in modern and ancient records as small peoples. The Mayans even depicted small people in their paintings as well as the Egyptians. There is no reason to refute the idea that various waves of populations moving out of Africa had various physical features at various periods of dispersal. As we all know, Africans are diverse, some are tall, some are short and they have the most fullest set of features of any populations on the planet.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is some truth to the idea that the world was once populated by small pygmy like populations.
It's misleading though.
Pygmy itself is a Greek word essentially meaning dwarf.
In history human beings tend to be smaller in the past than in the present.
This is due to diet.
It's agriculture and high protein meat eating that led to larger populations. That's probably why many of the smaller populations tend to be hunter gatherer, and also tend to occupy Islands or rain forests where there is not much large game to hunt.
Even the Japanese of the pre Neolithic fit this circumstance.
The small populations of Africa tend to either have E3a or B - not E3b - Y chromosome, and L1 or L2 mtdna.
They are in fact not necessarily closely - ie recently - related to each other, and these are not the lineages which spread around the world.
It's more that small size is and ancient adaptation that some people retain.
This is not the basis of the neolithic overflow from NorthEast Africa, which is rooted in different lineages altogether, and not particular associated with extremely small people.
There are also small Black people living on pacific and Indo pacific Islands - Melanesians.
But they have no biological relationship to African 'pygmy.'
Pygmy are not a race, and it's objectionable to treat the concept essentially like 'elv', dwarf or 'hobbit'.
Nor has there ever been a trans-continental Pygmy empire, in the sense of a biological, cultural, or political unity.
Melanesians for example developed their own culture which includes possibly independantly developed agriculture, but they had no knowledge whatsoever of Kemet, or Kush. After all, they live 500 miles off the coast of Asia and have been there for 70 thousand years.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is some truth to the idea that the world was once populated by small pygmy like populations.
It's misleading though.
Pygmy itself is a Greek word essentially meaning dwarf.
In history human beings tend to be smaller in the past than in the present.
This is due to diet.
.....
But they have no biological relationship to African 'pygmy.'
Pygmy are not a race, and it's objectionable to treat the concept essentially like 'elv', dwarf or 'hobbit'.
Nor has there ever been a trans-continental Pygmy empire, in the sense of a biological, cultural, or political unity.
Melanesians for example developed their own culture which includes possibly independantly developed agriculture, but they had no knowledge whatsoever of Kemet, or Kush. After all, they live 500 miles off the coast of Asia and have been there for 70 thousand years.
I said pygmy LIKE, meaning not pygmies per se, just people who are smaller than average. Everything else you said is EXACTLY what I was implying, in that ALL human migrations from Africa did NOT necessarily look like tall graceful modern East Africans. That's all. And of course, I never said that there was a "pygmy" Empire. I just said you cannot refute Mr. Winters by implying that there were NO historical migrations from Africa of populations of smaller size.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just said you cannot refute Mr. Winters by implying that there were NO historical migrations from Africa of populations of smaller size.
The fact remains that the people Winters calls pygmy's are *not* the product of 'historical' migrations. So the statement is false, and the insinuation is misleading.
They are aboriginal Asians who have lived in Melanesia for 70~ thousand years.
Thus the claim of *historical* migrations is refuted - no matter hwo many 'pygmy-like' word games we play. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just said you cannot refute Mr. Winters by implying that there were NO historical migrations from Africa of populations of smaller size.
The fact remains that the people Winters calls pygmy's are *not* the product of 'historical' migrations. So the statement is false, and the insinuation is misleading.
They are aboriginal Asians who have lived in Melanesia for 70~ thousand years.
Thus the claim of *historical* migrations is refuted - no matter hwo many 'pygmy-like' word games we play.
Actually, it is not a game. The reason why some make mistakes is because of the terminology employed to refer to various population migrations OUT of Africa. My concern is to clarify the issue that over the 70,000 years of human migrations OUT of Africa, there were different populations at different times with varying features and builds. So to cut through the distortion and confusion, it is very likely that some of the small bodied populations that migrated to Asia and elsewhere ALREADY had those features before they even left Africa. In fact, there are STILL populations in Africa with similar features and are NOT pygmies. But that also does NOT rule out that some of the populations who did migrate out of Africa over thousands of years WERE REAL PYGMIES.
No, that does not imply a pygmy empire throughout the world at any given time. It only implies that as you go FURTHER back in the history of human migrations the LESS of the variation among human populations is going to be the result of forces OUTSIDE of Africa. Which means more of those features were due to forces in Africa, meaning they were present when those populations left Africa.
Dont misunderstand my words as implicit support for Mr. Winter's arguments. I just want to avoid gross overgeneralization that can be confused into meaning something totally unintended.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: My concern is to clarify the issue that over the 70,000 years of human migrations OUT of Africa
It's fairly clear - it describes the ancestry of every non African on earth.
quote: So to cut through the distortion and confusion, it is very likely that some of the small bodied populations that migrated to Asia and elsewhere ALREADY had those features before they even left Africa.
Certainly they were Black, some may have been small. Black is adaptation to tropical latitude, size is adaptation to food supply.
But keep in mind - it's possible that some of the ancestors of Africans like the Dinka [among the tallest people on earth], were also much smaller than they are now....and it is possible that some of the groups of Africans who are now small - were somewhat taller 70 thousand years ago. Height is one of the most maleable and strongly select for characteristics of human beings.
Africans who are biologically related to each other encompass among the tallest and smallest and most 'in between' of all peoples.
quote: In fact, there are STILL populations in Africa with similar features and are NOT pygmies.
This is why I don't find the term particularly useful. It is being implied that small sized people are a race or and ethnic group - like elves or dwarfs with a singular culture, language, biological history and identity.
For example, Carleton Coon once stated that the pygmy were a 'different' species than 'normal humans', and he then went on to imply that the so called true negro was a hybrid of pygmy and caucasoid.
quote: But that also does NOT rule out that some of the populations who did migrate out of Africa over thousands of years WERE REAL PYGMIES.
Sigh. Which takes us back to square one - please define real pygmy? Otherwise you merely provide and example of the distortion and confusion you ostensibly wish to cut thru.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My concern is to clarify the issue that over the 70,000 years of human migrations OUT of Africa
It's fairly clear - it describes the ancestry of every non African on earth.
quote: So to cut through the distortion and confusion, it is very likely that some of the small bodied populations that migrated to Asia and elsewhere ALREADY had those features before they even left Africa.
Certainly they were Black, some may have been small. Black is adaptation to tropical latitude, size is adaptation to food supply.
But keep in mind - it's possible that some of the ancestors of Africans like the Dinka [among the tallest people on earth], were also much smaller than they are now....and it is possible that some of the groups of Africans who are now small - were somewhat taller 70 thousand years ago. Height is one of the most maleable and strongly select for characteristics of human beings.
Africans who are biologically related to each other encompass among the tallest and smallest and most 'in between' of all peoples.
quote: In fact, there are STILL populations in Africa with similar features and are NOT pygmies.
This is why I don't find the term particularly useful. It is being implied that small sized people are a race or and ethnic group - like elves or dwarfs with a singular culture, language, biological history and identity.
For example, Carleton Coon once stated that the pygmy were a 'different' species than 'normal humans', and he then went on to imply that the so called true negro was a hybrid of pygmy and caucasoid.
quote: But that also does NOT rule out that some of the populations who did migrate out of Africa over thousands of years WERE REAL PYGMIES.
Sigh. Which takes us back to square one - please define real pygmy? Otherwise you merely provide and example of the distortion and confusion you ostensibly wish to cut thru.
I understand your point about pygmy and we are going in circles again. Like I said, much of the confusion comes not from me, but from those who COINED the term pygmy in the first place and from those who misuse it as in "pygmy empire"
Good discussion on the term "pygmy":
quote: n an anthropological context, a Pygmy is specifically a member of one of the nomadic hunter-gatherer peoples living in equatorial rainforests characterised by their short height (below 1.5 metres, or 4.5 feet, on average). Pygmies are found throughout central Africa, with smaller numbers in south-east Asia (see Negrito). Members of so-called Pygmy groups often consider the term derogatory, instead preferring to be called by the name of their ethnic group (e.g., Baka, Mbuti).
quote: Phraya Samanta Rathburint (no ref. given) claims that his study of ancient Malay material indicates that in "approximately" the year BE 734 / AD 191 four tribal groups came to the area and gave rise to the aboriginal natives of the country. These are: - the Kahazi, tall man-eaters, referred to as giants (not identifiable) - the Mani, dark skinned, with curly hairs, living in huts in the jungle - the Siamangs or Semangs, dark skinned people with curly hair, living in the high areas of the mountains (clearly the Mani and Semangs) - he Orang La-Ode, nomadic people, living on the sea along the coastal areas and islands (the Moken?) (ref. 4 and 15).
Put in less legendary terms: the evidence is said to support the contention that 4,000 to 10,000 years ago there was a group of Negrito people living in limestone caves of the Malay Peninsula (ref. 5) that are thought to be the direct ancestors of today's Negritos in the same area.
Around 4,500 to 3,500 years ago, another group of people moved into to the Malay peninsula: the first Malay people or Proto-Malays who brought a neolithic culture with them (ref. 10). Their culture is characterised by the Terra cotta ware today unearthed at archaeological sites in Thailand and Malaysia. It is thought that the Proto-Malays came from southern parts of China, perhaps Yunnan Province, and that they were of Mongolid stock (ref. 5).
About 3,500 years ago, there was another large-scale movement of people into the Indochina peninsula from the West, i.e. from India. After the Aryan migration into India, some aboriginal populations speaking Mon-Khmer languages seem to have moved towards the east to Indochina (19). It is also said that 7,500 to 4,500 years ago and again around 4,000 years ago, groups of people moved from Indochina into the Malay peninsula and some think that these later became known as the Manis. However, the migrants from India would make rather more convincing ancestors (as one ingredient among others) for the Veddoid Senoi than any of the Negrito groups would.
More groups followed around 4,000 years ago (ref. 15 and 16).
These population movements took place over long periods and resulted in much intermixing (ref. 10). Thus the people today referred to as the ancient Malays or Proto-Malays are people who represent a mixture of racial traits and cultures. They are the people who had pushed the earliest aboriginal people, the Negritos, to move further south where there was further mixing with other people, resulting in the Senois (refs. 12-14).
Around 2,300 years ago the Malays appeared in the peninsula that now bears their name. They probably came from coastal Borneo and were experienced seafarers who knew the lands they wanted to conquer and settle. The new Malays belonged to the same stock as the Proto-Malays (i.e. they must have moved to Borneo from southern China at some stage in their prehistory) but unlike the neolithic Proto-Malays they carried a much more advanced technology: their tools were made of metal. They settled in what is now Malaysia around 2,300 years ago. With their advances technology, they rapidly pushed all the older groups out of the way and into the jungle and mountainous areas, where they remain until today. The New Malays who are still at their original level of technology are today are known as the Jakuns. They live in the southern part of Malaysia and are regarded as the ancestors of the sea people, also known as Moken or Orang Laut. The modern Malaysians are people of mixed blood, from the Negritos, the Veddoids, the Proto-Malays and the new Malays. There was also continuing migration from India, especially into the Indonesian area around BE 10 (ca. BC 530).
NOTE: There are those who believe that some of these peoples did form Empires, like the cham and champa cultures of South East asia. The difference here being that they DONT ascribe the neolithic technology as being from South Chinese "mongoloids" but a branch of proto asians more like, for lack of a better term, "small black asians" (who may not have had the same features as the aborignal negritoes) from the West. Thus, some historians, like Mr. Winters, prefers to refer to these ancient empires found in southern Asia and parts of africa as the "pygmy empire", which is erroneous for many reasons. In this sense, these historians want to put the origins of the ancient South Asian cultures in the black populations of the neolithic, not northern LIGHTER skinned populations....
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol is correct that the Neolithic is in reference to Stone Age technology characterized by agriculture and animal domestication.
As with the acquirement of new technology, especially one which ensures higher yield of food there is population explosion. This could be seen in modern times with people who acquire industrial technology and whose populations explode and can be seen even today in 'developing' nations.
With population explosion comes expansions. West Asians and Africans both of whom were bearers of the Neolithic spread into Europe mainly throuth the Aegean and southeast Europe (Greece).
Of course they were not the only ones who developed Neolithic culture. Peoples in South Asia (India), East and Southeast Asia like China, and even the Americas developed Neolithic culture independently. So too did peoples in the Pacific like New Guinea.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic