quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.
This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits.
What I meant was that the Natufian designation is based on cultural artifacts alone, not a phenotype. Not all Natufians displayed the so-called 'Negroid' traits. But all other cultures in the area did display non-negroid traits. Clearly we are dealing with a population of heterogeneous and not uniform background whatever the material culture is. Is this not similar to Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, some of whom were not "negroid" in appearance?
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeingagayloser: Mary Mary.
..had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow. We know the rhyme. Now I have one for you: Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jumped hard onto an Asian man's d|ck. He rode so hard, he rode so fast, he did it so until he broke his- ass. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: *For what it's worth, data referenced by Hershkovitz et al. 1995 puts the brachial index means of the non-Hayonim Natufian samples at 77% and that of Hayonim Natufian samples in the range of 75-78. Apparently, the non-Hayonim collection of Natufian samples report a mean that is greater than that observed for either recent Europeans or Neanderthals. The Hayonim Natufian collection on the other hand is more varied, displaying means that range from those similar to recent Europeans to those similar to tropical African means. No data was given on the crural means. My educated guess is that Natufians are generally likely to display intermediate patterns of limb-proportions between that of tropical African means and those of recent Europeans, and not simplistic as the claim being attributed to Holliday, about Natufians being "cold-adapted". There is nothing particularly cold about the Levant. However, mixed ranges of limb-proportions may reflect biological contributions from groups ultimately originating from differing geographical locations from that of the Levant.
*Natufian samples have been collected from several different sites namely: Hayonim cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Eynan, and Nahal Oren. They are noticeably varied in their morphological manifestations; see for example...
The Natufian poplations sampled in the skeletal assemblages from Hayonim Cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Nahal Oren, and Eynan display a significant range of variability in both morphology and size (Table 1; see also Arensburg et al., 1975; Belfer-Cohen et al., 1992; Ladiray and Soliveres-Massei, 1988). To speak about a “Natufian cranial morphotype” is thus simplistic and potentially misleading, although some generalizations can be made. The similarities between Ohalo I1 H2 and the sample of Natufian males is strongest in the configuration of the facial skeleton (e.g., nasal and orbital size, height and breadth of the upper face), while strong differences may be seen in the calvaria. - Hershkovitz et al. 1995
The link provided by Truthcentric mentions nothing about the Natufians to my knowledge. As for the other citation provided without specified context, what indexes is the reader told about - brachial?, crural?, body linearity?, femoral head diameter?, etc. What specific Natufian samples were under study; are there noticeable variations across samples from different sites; is there a dominating trend within one sample vs. that of another sample from a different site, etc? I think these are obvious, if not fair questions to ask, so as to get a firm grip on from what angle the author (in this case Holliday) is arriving at his/her conclusion(s).
*Furthermore, there is a bias in the correlative value of limb proportion means. For instance, in all likelihood, tropical body plans are accommodated by considerable eumelanin concentration in the skin, due to the solar radiation intensity of tropical regions. Shorter limb proportions on the other hand, don't correlate as well with possible skin melanin concentration. Think for example, that KhoiSan groups are considerably darker than Europeans, but "sub-tropical" limb proportions have been reported among them. Likewise, although light in tone, the Inuit are still noticeably darker than western Europeans, while displaying fairly small indexes for their limb proportions. So, "cold-adapted" must not be mistaken to mean "white".
Finally, some light is shed by Explorer. Thanks.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.
This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits.
What I meant was that the Natufian designation is based on cultural artifacts alone, not a phenotype. Not all Natufians displayed the so-called 'Negroid' traits. But all other cultures in the area did display non-negroid traits. Clearly we are dealing with a population of heterogeneous and not uniform background whatever the material culture is. Is this not similar to Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, some of whom were not "negroid" in appearance?
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeingagayloser: Mary Mary.
..had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow. We know the rhyme. Now I have one for you: Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jumped hard onto an Asian man's d|ck. He rode so hard, he rode so fast, he did it so until he broke his- ass.
Actually the Rhyme would be "Mary, Mary", quite contrary, how does your garden grow...SOMETHING else..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Mary, Mary, quite contrary, How does your garden grow? With silver bells, and cockle shells, And pretty maids all in a row.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: we can disqualify Trenton’s Natufians from having anything to do with the later ones described by Brace, Keith and Angel.
How? What are you disqualifying the samples from?
Being Natufians?
From what it seems, you're trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype in different eras despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations.
Otherwise what is your point?
Now remember as you noted that Natufian were a distinctive population sharing cultural characteristics, all from the same era...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: His other data set of skeletons (Kebara) seems to be where the name of the pre-Natufian culture was derived from. I think that says enough.
About?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If my sources are correct,
What are your sources?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Furthermore, the data used by Trenton hardly contradicts an African origin for the Natufians described by Brace, Keita and Angel.
How does the above fit in with the following...
What I understand, is that Natufian culture predates the migration of African immigrants.--Kalonji
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Unless MOM has anything to add I think the case is closed
Your case is closed indeed.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.
This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits.
What I meant was that the Natufian designation is based on cultural artifacts alone, not a phenotype. Not all Natufians displayed the so-called 'Negroid' traits.
Just pointing out the obvious contradiction, in one sentence you say Natufians don't sport a certain phenotype, then in the next sentence you state that the Natufians were distinguished due to specific phenoptypical characteristics.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: How? What are you disqualifying the samples from?
Being Natufians?
From what it seems, you're trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype in different eras despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations.
LOL there ARE different phenotypes in different areas, anything wrong with me pointing this out? Sue me. Note that your position is flawed, since it has the underlying assumption that when a population arises from two different sources, they can’t exhibit distinct phenotypes.
quote:despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations
Note that now all of a sudden, your ‘’Natufians’’ are a physical blend of features again, instead of a set of cultural features. Let’s go back to what you said in your first post, where you did the EXACT same thing:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.
^ Note that both statements are TOTALLY incorrect. Or at least, the last one is still awaiting documentation, specifically of WHEN these Mushabians came in, for you to say they co-created something. The sources I have provided shows the Africans immigrated later.
quote:it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
What you CLEARLY did is, you took Brace’s sample, and extended it over the Natufians in general, while taking Trentons samples and made that say something about the Natufians in general.
And now, when I have provided the sources to show that it is NOT the case that the Natufians are some homogenous group with static facial features of Brace’s resemblance to Niger-Congo speakers, and Trentons relative short limbs, you try to accuse me of ‘’trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype’’.
From what I understood, Truthcentric OP stated that he was unsure about the African nature of certain Natufians, and he took Tentons sample to mean something about these samples that sported African morphology. This is in fact the SAME thing YOU did, as its obvious from your very first post.
Hence my attempt to separate the two and make both samples do their own talking, to make sure everyone got the full picture, instead of your weird lumping. Just like for example the Badarian samples do their own talking compared to contemporary lower or upper Egyptian samples. But of course you agree with this, you’re just trying to ‘’be right’’, when you’re NOT.
Whats even more laughable, is that Brace’s Natufians sample that clustered somewhat with Niger-Congo speakers was limited to 4 specimens!!!
Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used.
But that didn’t stop you from lumping two osteological measurements without having the slightest idea of what regions these authors got their samples from. Basically, you were just blindly making generalizing statements, not unlike Lioness’s AE mulatto theory when you said:
quote:it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
^LOL, Natufian mulattoes with faces that resemble Niger Congo speakers and short limbs. HAHAHAHA
Your other questions are nothing but laughable attempts to obscure the blunders you made, especially since you make no mention about the fact that you were wrong about the co-creation of Natufian culture, nor did you provide refutation that the African immigrants came when there already existed a population that was called ‘’Natufian’’.
Do your authors (Ehret, D 'Agostino) give reverences where they got their co-creation theory from? It seems that the archeologists on the ground, who have had live experience with the skeletons in question have a different story to tell regarding the relative lateness of the skeletons that bear African phenotypes.
A story that you have yet to comment on/refute.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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, TheHistory 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. 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.
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, as you claim in your post.
As you can see they were not cold adapted.
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 theLavant,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. 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.
posted
Below are a few quotes from the paper by Holliday they show that the population at this time was Negroid in Southwest Asia.
"In this light, some of the more robust assignments (albeit not 95% of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids to the sub-Saharan African sample e.g., Qafzeh 8 at 85%, Skhul 4 at 71%) are remarkable indeed" (p. 62).
"The Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have sometimes been refered to as "Proto-CroMagnons" (e.g., Howell 1957; Vandermeersch 1996) because of their presumed similarity to the famous Aurignacian-associated hominids from Western Europe....Specifically [Brace], he notes that "in both the details of its dental and craniological size and from Qafzeh is an unlikely proto-Cro-Magnon, but it makes a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans"(p.63).
"taken as a whole, the work of Tchernov seems to support the findings of the current research that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have their origins in Africa, while the Neanderthals are from cold to temperate biomes"(p.64).
"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)" (p.64).\
This shows that using an abstract to discuss the specific contents of a paper may lead to false interpretations of that paper.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny when a given people fall in between two so called categories
this makes people go round in round in an endless loop chasing their tails. Why do they do this? They love when this happens, it gives them something to do and it perpetuates the idea that people fall into these racial boxes. And for them, all this complex information must reduce to "A" or "B". When it doesn't it's great because then we can have a tail chasing party.
But what defines these boxes never gets standardized. So when you read the above it appears like all this scientific information is being discussed it is all being processed in an emotionally based primitive viewpoint.
And I like Truthcentric's style. He drops a bomb and then takes a cigarette break for two weeks watching this little dance go on.
posted
^ What "bomb", fool? Explorer's post explains everything. Not all Natufians were cold adapted.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Just pointing out the obvious contradiction, in one sentence you say Natufians don't sport a certain phenotype, then in the next sentence you state that the Natufians were distinguished due to specific phenoptypical characteristics.
What I'm trying to say is that the label of 'Natufian' is a cultural one and is not meant to be a label of specific phenotype like 'Metchtoid' even though the populace was distinguished by other contemporary cultures by the possession of certain phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: ^^^^LoL for real its a Nursery Rhyme..
Mary, Mary, quite contrary, How does your garden grow? With silver bells, and cockle shells, And pretty maids all in a row.
Oh yes I forgot that one. But of course leave it to the botched Boygeorge to know his British nursery rhymes.
He still fulfills mine every time, though. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: How? What are you disqualifying the samples from?
Being Natufians?
From what it seems, you're trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype in different eras despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations.
LOL there ARE different phenotypes in different areas, anything wrong with me pointing this out?
Not at all, but I asked you how are you disqualifying these Natufians, why, and what are you disqualifying them from? Again point is Natufians were'nt homogenous and differing phenotypical characteristics amongst them doesn't make one more part of that Natufian culture than the next.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Note that your position is flawed, since it has the underlying assumption that when a population arises from two different sources, they can’t exhibit distinct phenotypes.
Where did I make this assumption? I didn't. And what do you mean by distinct phenotype?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations
Note that now all of a sudden, your ‘’Natufians’’ are a physical blend of features again, instead of a set of cultural features.
They never ceased to be either, it seems you have a little trouble understanding. Natufians were a population with a physical blend of features (phenotypically) and a specific set of cultural traits, which is recognized as Natufian culture.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Let’s go back to what you said in your first post, where you did the EXACT same thing:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.
^ Note that both statements are TOTALLY incorrect.
You have failed to show where the above would be incorrect, simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Or at least, the last one is still awaiting documentation, specifically of WHEN these Mushabians came in, for you to say they co-created something.
21 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.
^^To elaborate on the the itnroduction of the grind stone...
quote:Natufian Artifacts
Artifacts found at Natufian sites include grinding stones , used to process seeds, dried meats and fish for planned meals, and ochre for likely ritual practices. Flint and bone tools, and dentalium shell ornaments are also part of the Natufian assemblage. Specific tools created for harvesting various crops are a hallmark of Natufian assemblages, such as stone sickles. Large middens are known at Natufian sites, located where they were created (rather than secondary refuse pits). Dealing with refuse is one defining characteristics of the descendants of the Natufians, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: The sources I have provided shows the Africans immigrated later.
What sources? My sources show Africans migrating into the Levant during the Mesolithic wherein the Natufian culture arose.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
What you CLEARLY did is, you took Brace’s sample, and extended it over the Natufians in general, while taking Trentons samples and made that say something about the Natufians in general.
Actually no, I took Brace's comments, Angel's, Garrod's, Mc'cowns etc...on cranio-facial characteristics... and Trenton isn't the only anthropologist to note differing limb proportions amongst the Natufians, (note Explorers post above) which was to note that it was already known that this population would have these intermediate fluctuating limb proportions due to the evidence that shows Natufians arose from immigrating Africans into southwest Asia coming together with a population in SW Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: And now, when I have provided the sources to show that it is NOT the case that the Natufians are some homogenous group with static facial features of Brace’s resemblance to Niger-Congo speakers, and Trentons relative short limbs,
Elaborate here please...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: you try to accuse me of ‘’trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype’’.
I accused you of this on the grounds that you were trying to exclude samples from others (all Natufians) seemingly in a fashion meant to establish a specific phenotype for the Natufians, meanwhile it has been noted that they were not a homogeneous group.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: From what I understood, Truthcentric OP stated that he was unsure about the African nature of certain Natufians, and he took Tentons sample to mean something about these samples that sported African morphology. This is in fact the SAME thing YOU did, as its obvious from your very first post.
Nope.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Hence my attempt to separate the two and make both samples do their own talking, to make sure everyone got the full picture, instead of your weird lumping.
As explained above I'm going off more than Brace and Trentons words on the Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Just like for example the Badarian samples do their own talking compared to contemporary lower or upper Egyptian samples.
Again, the point is Natufians were Natufians, and not a homogenous group with a specific phenotype.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
^LOL, Natufian mulattoes with faces that resemble Niger Congo speakers and short limbs. HAHAHAHA
Don't put words in my mouth, my point is clear, the Natufians were a heterogeneous group, so in essence not illogical to see these differing phenotypical characteristics, no need to disqualify one set of Natufian samples from another just because they differ. They differ because they're heterogeneous.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Your other questions are nothing but laughable attempts to obscure the blunders you made, especially since you make no mention about the fact that you were wrong about the co-creation of Natufian culture, nor did you provide refutation that the African immigrants came when there already existed a population that was called ‘’Natufian’’.
Here's the thing, genetically we have evidence of a population from Africa moving into the Levant during the Mesolithic...
"a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation [E3b] expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant" (Underhill et al., 2001, p. 55; see also Bosch et al., 2001; Bar-Yosef, 1987) [Keita, 2005, p. 562]
Archaeologically we have a definitive role of establishment (due to overflow from NE Africa) of the Natufian culture....
"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." ---Bar Yosef
And above from Ehret we have linguistic evidence noting agricultural practices being introduced to southwest Asia from Africa. So where do you stand?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Not at all, but I asked you how are you disqualifying these Natufians, why, and what are you disqualifying them from? Again point is Natufians were'nt homogenous and differing phenotypical characteristics amongst them doesn't make one more part of that Natufian culture than the next.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this. My point is clear. I was disqualifying the conclusions drawn from one specific study that used two sets of skeletons from having anything to do (post cranially) with other studies that found their sample to be ethnically African, until it can be proven that said samples exhibited cold adapted limbs.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Where did I make this assumption? I didn't. And what do you mean by distinct phenotype?
Read the last post from the previous thread. As a matter of fact, read the sources you claim to have used beside Brace and Trenton.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: They never ceased to be either, it seems you have a little trouble understanding. Natufians were a population with a physical blend of features (phenotypically) and a specific set of cultural traits, which is recognized as Natufian culture.
YOU have trouble understanding. The samples used by Brace, Angel etc did NOT display a blend of features or cold adapted limbs. The fact of the matter is that these samples show that at time of burial, they were predominantly African, and that Trentons cold adapted limbs did not pertain to them. This was Truthcentrics question, and that is why I singled these samples out. If you think that equals ‘’trouble understanding’’ than that is YOUR derailing, and YOUR misplaced opinion of what this discussion is about.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: You have failed to show where the above would be incorrect, simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
I have called you out on the fact that 4 specimen are not sufficient to label Natufians in general, similar to Brace’s Niger Congo speakers. I have also called you out on the fact that Brace’s sample was just a sample, and that were other ethnic groups present that did not display the traits you attribute to Natufians in your first post.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: …. Uses Christopher Ehret …..
Who do you think you telling this to? I myself have referred to CE’s interview before, this is old news. What I asked you, and what you substituted for this old CE article is:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Do your authors (Ehret, D 'Agostino) give reverences where they got their co-creation theory from? It seems that the archeologists on the ground, who have had live experience with the skeletons in question have a different story to tell regarding the relative lateness of the skeletons that bear African phenotypes.
Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. Out of this, you get the Natufian people
Where does he say that Africans co-originated Natufian culture? Exactly, he doesn’t.
Your random quotes about grindstones are totally irrelevant, and to be frank, they have a hint of strawman to them.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: What sources? My sources show Africans migrating into the Levant during the Mesolithic wherein the Natufian culture arose.
They don’t. Nowhere do they **specifically** state, how, and by what contributions, it can be argued that the Natufian culture arose out of an earlier Eurasian, non-Natufian culture. Nor do they provide specific dates, of when the earliest Africans migrated, for anyone to claim a co-creation theory.
This is what the Archeologists have pointed out:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.
C’mon son, get outta here with that co-creation stuff.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Actually no, I took Brace's comments, Angel's, Garrod's, Mc'cowns etc...on cranio-facial characteristics...
^LMAO. You didn’t. Brace is the only one who compared his Natufian sample with Niger-Congo speakers. Also, Angel thought the Natufians were related to the ancesters of Badarians:
"Against this background of disease, movement and pedomorphic reduction of 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, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations during pre-Dynastic and Dynastic Times. J. Lawrence Angel. Journal of Human Evolutiom. 1972:1, 1, Pg 307)
and the other authors simply noted their African characteristics, despite using a typological approach at times. You were totally using Brace as your sole source when you made the following ''Natufians = Cold adapted and resemble Niger Congo'' claim:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
You need to stop running away from your initial ignorance and simply admit it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: and Trenton isn't the only anthropologist to note differing limb proportions amongst the Natufians, (note Explorers post above) which was to note that it was already known that this population would have these intermediate fluctuating limb proportions due to the evidence that shows Natufians arose from immigrating Africans into southwest Asia coming together with a population in SW Asia.
If you were aware of the data that was posted in terms of osteological heterogeneity, you wouldn’t have said that Natufians were cold adapted, neither would you have said that they resembled Niger Congo speakers. You are LYING. The sources posted above by the poster you mention don’t provide support for either a resemblance to Niger Congo speakers, or cold adapted limbs for Natufians. The sources argue for heterogeneity.
You keep flip flopping back and forth between ‘’heterogeneity’’ and ‘’short limbed’’/Niger Congo characteristics which implies homogeneity. Clearly you don’t grasp what ‘’heterogeneity means.
Further proof that you were unaware of said studies is:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: which was to note that it was already known that this population would have these intermediate fluctuating limb proportions
^Now all of a sudden they are intermediate. In your initial blunder post, you said that they were cold adapted. CLEARLY you were basing your ignorance on Trenton, as Trenton used the term ‘’cold adapted’’, whereas the sources posted argue for heterogeneity. Cold adapted does NOT imply heterogeneity, sorry.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: I accused you of this on the grounds that you were trying to exclude samples from others (all Natufians) seemingly in a fashion meant to establish a specific phenotype for the Natufians, meanwhile it has been noted that they were not a homogeneous group.
What??? My last post on the previous thread clearly argues for two entities in the Levant, who by the time that the samples were buried, show that were distinct enough for anthropologist to notice a sudden change. How can someone who shows both entities exclude samples? Please tell me.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: As explained above I'm going off more than Brace and Trentons words on the Natufians.
You are lying, and you know it. Only Trenton and Brace's samples produced these results, that you amplified over the entire Natufian population:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Can you establish that the cold adapted limbs found by Trenton relate to Brace's sample that fell in between Niger congo speakers and Nubians? If not, why associate Trentons cold adapted limbs with Brace's sample?
To which MOM replied:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples , secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?
My response:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: I'll assume this wasn't a strawman and that you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask HOW they were related, I asked what the basis was for generalised nature the following statement: quote: ________________________________________ Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. ________________________________________ And whether the inconsistent results of cranial/post cranial meassurements could not have been the result of the use of different samples. And that, had the same samples been used, we might have had different results.
MOM's response that shows he was ignorant about the specifics besides Brace and Trenton, and needed to ''take a look'':
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well, it "could" be anything, if you can find evidence for it, I'll take a look.
Hence the Niger Congo cranio-facial characteristics with more cold adapted limbs is not illogical for a population that arose out of two different ones (populations).
^That was our little history. This clearly shows you were completely ignorant about the studies that were done besides Brace and Trenton. You were simply assuming and reasoning, and even THEN, you STILL only used Brace’s conclusion that was based on four crania. And that (reliance on 4 crania) comes from the same person who tries to school me about Natufian heterogeneity, and who accuses me of excluding samples. It seems to me you need some schooling yourself, and that it is YOU who would rather obstruct your vision than look at all the samples available.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Again, the point is Natufians were Natufians, and not a homogenous group with a specific phenotype.
Stop flip flopping buddy. In your opening post you said:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Don't put words in my mouth, my point is clear, the Natufians were a heterogeneous group, so in essence not illogical to see these differing phenotypical characteristics,
If you believe that is the case, why feel the need to ask me the following question?:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: And what do you mean by distinct phenotype?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Here's the thing, genetically we have evidence of a population from Africa moving into the Levant during the Mesolithic...
Irrelevant talk, since quotes about a co-creation of Natufians can’t be provided.
Should’ve grapped the opportunity to agree with a case close, you’re making yourself look ignorant.
C’mon son!!
You should be featured on C’mon son episode 18.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Not at all, but I asked you how are you disqualifying these Natufians, why, and what are you disqualifying them from? Again point is Natufians were'nt homogenous and differing phenotypical characteristics amongst them doesn't make one more part of that Natufian culture than the next.
I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this
You won't, simply because you know you're wrong, no problem.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: My point is clear.
Your point is clear, which is that you think Africans came into the Natufian population that already existed in the Levant, meanwhile all evidence shows otherwise, and that Africans migrated into the Levant before the rise of the Natufians in essence giving rise to the Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I was disqualifying the conclusions drawn from one specific study that used two sets of skeletons from having anything to do (post cranially) with other studies that found their sample to be ethnically African, until it can be proven that said samples exhibited cold adapted limbs.
Yea we know that two different samples were separated from eachother, this is not the point, point is they're both Natufian samples, hence represent the Natufian population regardless of how they looked.
Btw, do you even know what post cranially means?
Post cranially discusses the back of the head, did you know that?.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Where did I make this assumption? I didn't. And what do you mean by distinct phenotype?
Read the last post from the previous thread. As a matter of fact, read the sources you claim to have used beside Brace and Trenton.
I'll take this as evidence of you having no idea of where I supposedly made this "assumption"
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: YOU have trouble understanding.
What you have trouble understanding is that the Natufians are noted to have arisen due to connection between the Mushabaens and Kebarans hence conflicting features are not unlikely.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: You have failed to show where the above would be incorrect, simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
I have called you out on the fact that 4 specimen
Meanwhile you're the only one going by four specimens, because it isn't me. I noted that I was speaking upon the knowledge of all Natufian examples.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I have also called you out on the fact that Brace’s sample was just a sample, and that were other ethnic groups present that did not display the traits you attribute to Natufians in your first post.
Are you slow? My position this whole time has been that the Natufians vary, so how do you think you're schooling me on this? You called me out on what? Lmao.
You have absolutely no evidence for any other ethnic groups coming together to form the Natufian population other than what I provided. Mushabaens and Kebara ethnic groups. Give it up.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: …. Uses Christopher Ehret …..
Who do you think you telling this to? I myself have referred to CE’s interview before, this is old news. What I asked you, and what you substituted for this old CE article is
No, dunce, you asked me for evidence of Mushabaens moving into southwest Asia and ultimately giving rise to the Natufians. Which has been provided per Ehret.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what as a matter of fact,look here Kalonji, I'm not going to go back and forth with YOU. On something I know I'm right on.( Have too many things to do). Which is that the Natufians formed out of a migration from Africa into the Levant. Two different populations, the Mushabaens and Kebarans are who are noted archaeologically to have created the Natufian population. Genetically we have Africans moving into the Levant during the Mesolithic. Lingusitically it has shown as well. Hence my point that differing features amongst Natufians is not new, and is rather logical considering...
"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." ---Bar Yosef
If anything you have differs or refutes specifically from what is posted above let it be known. If not, I have nothing more to say to you. As it is clear you have no argument against my point. Only against the way something might have been said? Which in essence was actually your own assumption and misinterpretation as I note. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There has to have been two separate migration one in which the an African-like modern population moving into and making contact with Neanderthal population with archaic features and cold adopted.
posted
Anyone who has read this thread knows how wrong you are, I think they're just silent out of pity for you. Since that is the case, I'm just going to leave it at that.
Weren't posters like you supposed to be on another level?
LOL
Conclusion:
-In contrary to what you've stated, the Natufians were NOT cold adapted since Trenton's samples did not include the African ethnic groups. -In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did. -In contrary tot what you've stated, Natufian culture is older than the African migration. -You were NOT aware of other sources beside Brace and Trenton, hence why you swithed from ''cold adapted'''limbs to ''intermediate'' after said sources were posted. (LIAR) -Co-creation theories proposed by Mindovermatter have not been subscribed to by Ehret or any other authors, and if they did they were assumptuous. This is why you had a relentless tendency to quote irrelevant matters, such as ''grindstones'', migration to Europe, etc. -And no, ''post crania'' doesn't always refer to the back of the head. This is just your desire to be right. Since you were steadily taking losses, you thought you could ''own'' something trivial. But no, sorry. SMH
Postcrania[p] (postcranium, adjective: postcranial) in zoology and vertebrate paleontology refers to all or part of the skeleton apart from the skull. Frequently, fossil remains, e.g. of dinosaurs or other extinct tetrapods, consist of partial or isolated skeletal elements; these are referred to as "postcrania".
EPIC FAIL Can't even be right when going offtopic
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the difference between a tropically adapted individual and a cold adapted individual? They don't cluster with each other on PCA plots.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:
quote:Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.
This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?
Evergreen Writes:
The Khoisan of South Africa are also "somewhat cold-adapted" does that mean they are not Black?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:
quote:Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.
This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?
Evergreen Writes:
The Khoisan of South Africa are also "somewhat cold-adapted" does that mean they are not Black?
Some of the Khoisans were white, the earliest white people
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:
quote:Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.
This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?
Evergreen Writes:
The Khoisan of South Africa are also "somewhat cold-adapted" does that mean they are not Black?
Good point.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
What is your opinion on Eurasian Mesolithic Natufians resembling Mesolithic northwest Africans and Upper paleolithic Europeans?
Do you think the cranio-facial resemblace was common for pre-neolithic populations, or that there is a link?
In the csse of Eurasian Mesolithic Natufians and Upper paleolithic Europeans, relatively distant shared ancestry should be expected, but what about northwest Africans?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Epipaleolithic site of Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) was discovered in 1962, ca. 1 km from the east bank of the Nile, and ca. 3 km north of Wadi Halfa (the site is now submerged beneath Lake Nasser/Nubia). From 1962-1966, a total of 58 intentionally-buried skeletons were uncovered at the site. Diagnostic microliths suggestive of the Qadan industry as well as the site’s geology suggest an age of 14 – 12 ka for these burials. In this study, the body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba hominins are compared to those of a large (N =ca. 1100) sample of recent human skeletons from Europe, Africa, and the north circumpolar region, as well as to terminal Pleistocene “Iberomaurusian” skeletons from the northwestern African sites of Afalou (Algeria) and Taforalt (Morocco), and Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine sites of El Wad and Kebara. Univariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from North or Sub-Saharan African samples. In contrast, multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ and UPGMA cluster analyses) [/b]indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba hominins is[/b] closest to that of recent Sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000), who, using non-metric dental and osseous oral traits, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent Sub-Saharan Africans, andmorphologically distinct from their contemporaries in other parts of North Africa. This study was funded in part by NSF (grant number SBR-9321339).
Can someone explain what is exactly different, and why this difference manifests itself in one method of comparing, and not the other.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kalonji - Nice piece of work, but by scientificaly analyzing his paper, you are suggesting that it has a scientific value. That is really giving Trenton W. Holliday more credit than he deserves. I give him no such respect, so I will simply deconstruct his nonsense.
Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia Trenton W. Holliday (Mar., 2000)
Abstract There is long-standing disagreement regarding Upper Pleistocene human evolution in Western Asia, particularly the Levant. Some argue that there were two different populations, perhaps different species, of Upper Pleistocene Levantine hominids. The first, from the Israeli sites of Qafzeh and Skhul, is anatomically modern. The second, from sites such as Amud, Kebara, and Tabun, is archaic, or "Neandertal" in morphology. Others argue that this is a false dichotomy and that all of these hominids belong to a single, highly variable population. In this paper I attempt to resolve this issue by examining postcranial measures reflective of body shape. Results indicate that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have African-like, or tropically adapted, proportions, while those from Amud, Kebara, Tabun, and Shanidar (Iraq) have more European-like, or cold-adapted, proportions. This suggests that there were in fact two distinct Western Asian populations and that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids were likely African in origin - a result consistent with the "Replacement" model of modern human origins
Definitions: Hominids, also known as great apes.
Neanderthal - The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000–350,000 years ago. Proto-Neanderthal traits are occasionally grouped to another phenetic 'species', Homo heidelbergensis, or a migrant form, Homo rhodesiensis.
By 130,000 years ago, complete Neanderthal characteristics had appeared. These characteristics then disappeared in Asia by 50,000 years ago and in Europe by about 30,000 years ago, with no further individuals having enough Neanderthal morphological traits to be considered as part of Homo neanderthalensis.
Current (as of 2010) genetic evidence suggests interbreeding took place with Homo sapiens sapiens (anatomically modern humans) between roughly 80,000 to 50,000 years ago in the Middle East, resulting in 1-4% of the genome of people from Eurasia having been contributed by Neanderthals.
His samples:
The Skhul/Qafzeh hominids or Qafzeh-Skhul early modern humans are human fossils from Qafzeh and Es Skhul Caves, Israel. The remains are quite robust; exhibiting a mix of archaic and modern traits. They have been tentatively dated at about 80,000-120,000 years old using electron spin resonance and thermoluminescence dating techniques. The brain case is similar to modern humans, but they possess brow ridges and a projecting facial profile, similar to the Neanderthals.
The samples from Amud, Kebara, Tabun, and Shanidar are NEANDERTHALS!!!
To those who brought Natufians into the debate: He is talking about "Humanoids". The Natufian culture was a "MODERN HUMAN" Mesolithic culture that existed in the Levant, in the period 12,500 to 9,500 BC. What could they possibly have to do with each other?
The Title quote: Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia.
Modern man is OLDER that ANY of the samples he is analyzing. SO HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE "EMERGENCE" OF MODERN MAN?
His quote: The first, from the Israeli sites of Qafzeh and Skhul, is anatomically modern.
NO THEY ARE NOT "ANATOMICALLY MODERN HUMANS" - THAT IS A LIE!!!
His quote: While those from Amud, Kebara, Tabun, and Shanidar (Iraq) have more "European-like", or cold-adapted, proportions. This suggests that there were in fact two distinct Western Asian populations and that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids were likely African in origin - a result consistent with the "Replacement" model of modern human origins
HERE IS IS APPEALING TO THE IGNORANT WHITE WITH THE TERMS "EUROPEAN LIKE" AND "REPLACEMENT" (like they were Whites who later went to Europe and were replaced in the area by Africans).
THE CORRECT TERM, WHICH IS SHORTER, IS NEANDERTHAL. BUT TO SAY NEANDERTHAL WOULD REMOVE THE POSSIBILITY OF IT SOUNDING LIKE HE IS TALKING ABOUT "WHITE" PEOPLE.
And really, that's what his whole paper was about. Trying to give Whites a toe-hole for saying that they are a unique and "Natural" species of Humans, who evolved naturally just like Blacks. That is of course NOT true. Whites are simply Black Albinos: genetics tells us that they separated from Blacks and lived separately from about 40,000 years ago. Trenton W. Holliday and the rest, just really need to accept that.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Whites are simply Black Albinos: genetics tells us that they separated from Blacks and lived separately from about 40,000 years ago. Trenton W. Holliday and the rest, just really need to accept that.[/b] [/QB]
40,000 years is ample time on a evolutionary basis for cold adaptation to occur. Evolutionary adaptation is observed in thousands of animal species that have specialized characteristics adapted to given climate.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Sorry Lioness, as usual what you say is nonsense. Central Asia is NOT the Arctic idiot!
The UV index is moderate, and as far as I know, Polar Bears don't live, and did NOT evolve in Apple Orchards!
{Did you know that Apples were native to central Asia?}
Apple orchard near Tamga (Issyk Kul Province, Kyrgyzstan). Photo: Ondřej Žváček, August 24, 2008. Located in Central Asia, landlocked and mountainous, Kyrgyzstan is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west, Tajikistan to the southwest and People's Republic of China to the east. Its capital and largest city is Bishkek.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] ^Sorry Lioness, as usual what you say is nonsense. Central Asia is NOT the Arctic idiot!
typical unscientific Mike111 picturenalysis
the assumption being that animal species in Central Asia would have no adaptations in comparison to animal species of North Africa. or that environmental adaptation only occurs in arctic extremes shows a high level of sub retardation on your part. Nobody on this thread is on the page your on and you are about to destroy it with your extensive picture spams of men who heat curl their beards.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: Some of the Khoisans were white, the earliest white people
Of course they were, IN YOUR DREAMS.
But getting back to reality.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Evergreen/Anguish/DJ
What is your opinion on Eurasian Mesolithic Natufians resembling Mesolithic northwest Africans and Upper paleolithic Europeans?
Do you think the cranio-facial resemblace was common for pre-neolithic populations, or that there is a link?
In the csse of Eurasian Mesolithic Natufians and Upper paleolithic Europeans, relatively distant shared ancestry should be expected, but what about northwest Africans?
Well I for one am not as familiar with the remains of mesolithic peoples of the Middle East. The Natufians were the only ones I ever hear of whose features are discussed. I remember Rasol telling me the reason why their features are discussed so much was that they were 'distinct' from other contemporary populations in the region. In my opinion, I would have to assume that that other Eurasians (in the vicinity) at that time didn't have such craniofacial features as pronounced in broad morphology.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
*For what it's worth, data referenced by Hershkovitz et al. 1995 puts the brachial index means of the non-Hayonim Natufian samples at 77% and that of Hayonim Natufian samples in the range of 75-78. Apparently, the non-Hayonim collection of Natufian samples report a mean that is greater than that observed for either recent Europeans or Neanderthals. The Hayonim Natufian collection on the other hand is more varied, displaying means that range from those similar to recent Europeans to those similar to tropical African means. No data was given on the crural means.
My educated guess is that Natufians are generally likely to display intermediate patterns of limb-proportions between that of tropical African means and those of recent Europeans, and not simplistic as the claim being attributed to Holliday, about Natufians being "cold-adapted". There is nothing particularly cold about the Levant. However, mixed ranges of limb-proportions may reflect biological contributions from groups ultimately originating from differing geographical locations from that of the Levant.
*Natufian samples have been collected from several different sites namely: Hayonim cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Eynan, and Nahal Oren. They are noticeably varied in their morphological manifestations; see for example...
The Natufian poplations sampled in the skeletal assemblages from Hayonim Cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Nahal Oren, and Eynan display a significant range of variability in both morphology and size (Table 1; see also Arensburg et al., 1975; Belfer-Cohen et al., 1992; Ladiray and Soliveres-Massei, 1988). To speak about a “Natufian cranial morphotype” is thus simplistic and potentially misleading, although some generalizations can be made. The similarities between Ohalo I1 H2 and the sample of Natufian males is strongest in the configuration of the facial skeleton (e.g., nasal and orbital size, height and breadth of the upper face), while strong differences may be seen in the calvaria. - Hershkovitz et al. 1995
The link provided by Truthcentric mentions nothing about the Natufians to my knowledge. As for the other citation provided without specified context, what indexes is the reader told about - brachial?, crural?, body linearity?, femoral head diameter?, etc. What specific Natufian samples were under study; are there noticeable variations across samples from different sites; is there a dominating trend within one sample vs. that of another sample from a different site, etc? I think these are obvious, if not fair questions to ask, so as to get a firm grip on from what angle the author (in this case Holliday) is arriving at his/her conclusion(s).
*Furthermore, there is a bias in the correlative value of limb proportion means. For instance, in all likelihood, tropical body plans are accommodated by considerable eumelanin concentration in the skin, due to the solar radiation intensity of tropical regions. Shorter limb proportions on the other hand, don't correlate as well with possible skin melanin concentration. Think for example, that KhoiSan groups are considerably darker than Europeans, but "sub-tropical" limb proportions have been reported among them. Likewise, although light in tone, the Inuit are still noticeably darker than western Europeans, while displaying fairly small indexes for their limb proportions. So, "cold-adapted" must not be mistaken to mean "white".
Indeed. Truthcentric's post seems similar to arguments on another board which he frequents, where one poster labored heavily to argue for yet another variant of the "incoming whites" theory - only this time, using "cold-adapted" as a code word to signify "white." He was apparently troubled by the case of the Natufians, who are called precursors of a more advanced Neolithic by some writers. To have a culture -wherein so-called "negroid" elements are so well represented - usher in one of the most significant periods in human culture apparently rankled, since it did not fit his "Mediterranean supreme" race model. Said poster drew heavily on the obsolete work of Carleton Coons who in examining one ancient Natufian skull boldly pronounced it "perfectly European." Ironically for the "Mediterranean" model, Coons also held that "Mediterraneans proper" sometimes had "negroid" tendencies.
As you say above though "cold adapted" is not at all a designator of "white". Indeed, since Africans vary on so many features, that they would vary on limb proportions is hardly at all surprising, as the example of the San peoples shows. Just as their are African peoples with narrow noses, so there are those with varying limb proportions. In addition, the early peoples of Southwest Asia, according to Hanihara 1996, looked like tropical Africans to begin with, undermining assorted "white" models.
Whatever the particular blend that made up the Natufians, over whatever periods, most mainstream scholars agree that they show strong African elements represented.
More info from another mainstream writer:
"“A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987).
This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998).
"This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005)..” --F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology. 80:5, pp. 535-564
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This goes back to what the author meant by "somewhat" cold adapted. The question is how much cold adapted. As Evergreen pointed out the Khoisan of subtropical southern Africa are little more 'cold adapted' compared to peoples of equatorial Africa. I would imagine this to be the case with populations aboriginal to subtropical North Africa who then migrated into the Levant.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ This goes back to what the author meant by "somewhat" cold adapted. The question is how much cold adapted. As Evergreen pointed out the Khoisan of subtropical southern Africa are little more 'cold adapted' compared to peoples of equatorial Africa. I would imagine this to be the case with populations aboriginal to subtropical North Africa who then migrated into the Levant.
Evergreen Writes:
Of interest is the fact that Zakrewski's analysis indicates that like Natufians - earlier Badarian populations are less tropically adapted in terms of limb attenuation than later Naqada populations,but have greater craniofacial affinities with some West African types.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Anyone who has read this thread knows how wrong you are,
How wrong I am? Sorry but as I've stated time and again in this very thread, the Natufians arose as a result of two diffrent cultures. One coming from Africa the other already residing in SW. Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I've provided evidence for the above,
Where kalonji? I've asked you numerous times, where is your evidence??
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I think they're just silent out of pity for you. Since that is the case, I'm just going to leave it at that.
Stop reaching....
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Weren't posters like you supposed to be on another level?
LOL
From you? Of course.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Conclusion:
-In contrary to what you've stated, the Natufians were NOT cold adapted since Trenton's samples did not include the African ethnic groups.
This is what you call a fallacy, case and point, I never said the Natufians were cold adapted.
Besides, the only Africans who do not display this tropical characteristic, would be sub-tropical populations like the Khoi and San.
Otherwise you can compare them to coastal north Africans who have been shown to be intermediate, specifically due to non indigenous African influence.
Non African = populations who have stayed outside of Africa long enough to be distinguished, not only phenotypically, but also genetically.
What other African ethic group might align with the Natufians in Trentons sample? Any idea?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: -In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.
How do you say they "didnt", wherein the next sentence, you say they did?
But only Braces samples? This makes absolutely no sense.
If Braces samples signifies this in four remains, how can you say they did not? You can't!!
Other samples of Natufians analyzed have been noted to resemble modern Africans, that have been deemed "Negroid".
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: -In contrary tot what you've stated, Natufian culture is older than the African migration.
Really?
Where have you provided evidence for this?
Please specify. Remember Natufians arose late Mesolithic. So provide evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: -You were NOT aware of other sources beside Brace and Trenton, hence why you swithed from ''cold adapted'''limbs to ''intermediate'' after said sources were posted. (LIAR)
Kid, just becasue you just started learning about this, doesnt mean others just did.
Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: -Co-creation theories proposed by Mindovermatter have not been subscribed to by Ehret or any other authors, and if they did they were assumptuous.
Are you slow?
"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." ---Bar Yosef
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: This is why you had a relentless tendency to quote irrelevant matters, such as ''grindstones'', migration to Europe, etc.
No kid, I quoted that in reference to Ehret and his linguistic evidence which indicates the words for this action are older in Africa than Asia, and appear later in Asia.
With noting of archaeological movement, along with genetic evdidence... it all goes together..
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: -And no, ''post crania'' doesn't always refer to the back of the head.
posted
Post-cranial simply means the rest of the skeletal structure of the body sans the skull or cranium.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Originally posted by Kalonji: I've provided evidence for the above, ________________________________________ Where kalonji? I've asked you numerous times, where is your evidence??
Can you point out to me where I said that, I can’t answer your question when you leave out the surrounding context.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: This is what you call a fallacy, case and point, I never said the Natufians were cold adapted.
Correct, you said ‘’more cold adapted’’. And you also used Brace’s cranio-facial measurements that were based on 4 crania to say something about Natufians in general. LOL.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Besides, the only Africans who do not display this tropical characteristic, would be sub-tropical populations like the Khoi and San.
Aaaaaand that is relevant because…? How does a population that is adapted to south Africa fit in this discussion.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Otherwise you can compare them to coastal north Africans who have been shown to be intermediate, specifically due to non indigenous African influence.
And there is a reason to delve into that because..?
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: What other African ethic group might align with the Natufians in Trentons sample? Any idea?
What is this, a quiz or something?
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: How do you say they "didnt", wherein the next sentence, you say they did?
But only Braces samples? This makes absolutely no sense.
If Braces samples signifies this in four remains, how can you say they did not? You can't!!
Other samples of Natufians analyzed have been noted to resemble modern Africans, that have been deemed "Negroid".
Huh..? You mean you’re so ignorant that you can’t even comprehend how 4 crania may not be representive of an ethnic group, much less an entire population that contained at least two ethnic groups? Dude.. 4 crania from the African component that practiced Natufians culture fell in between Niger Congo speakers and Nubians in Brace’s plot. This doesn’t take the Eurasian component into account. If Brace included the other component, the result would have been different. But you just don’t get it, or you don’t want to get it. 50% of Keita’s Badarian sample fell in the range of what his Gabonese sample was capable of expressing, but this doesn’t mean that both groups clustered in Keitas study. So I’mma put it up here again, and I dare you to say I’m wrong:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: -In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.
^I’m curious to see if your hard headedness will push you to keep arguing over something you’ve obviously lost.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Really? Where have you provided evidence for this? Please specify. Remember Natufians arose late Mesolithic. So provide evidence.
One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972)
See the word ‘’appearing’’ and the word ‘’latest’’? What does it mean when something ‘’appears’’ in the ‘’latest’’ part of a phase (Natufian hunters)?
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.
Note that Brace’s choice of words imply the same, in that the African traits he discusses don’t just pertain to ANY Epipalaeolithic Natufian, but specifically the Natufian that was contemporary, and involved in the making of the things we associate with the neolithic age. It just baffles me that you missed me quoting this before, and that you’re apparently not even aware of what Angel and others have been saying all along. This is what I had posted before, and you have yet to respond to it, and even worse, you keep acting like I haven’t shown it.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years.
Exactly, and judging by your inability to grasp the meaning of ‘’appearing negroid traits’’ in Natufians ‘’latest hunters’’ in Angels words, you clearly haven’t absorbed much.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Are you slow?
"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." ---Bar Yosef
No, not slow, but you obviously are! According to that quote, Bar Yosef makes no claims about a co-creation event. And the understanding I got from reading Brace, Angel Keith and others, is fully in line with what Bar Yosef said in your own quote. You’re just too slow to understand that from that quote, he doesn’t even agree with you about two population coming together to merge their cultures into Natufian.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: No kid, I quoted that in reference to Ehret and his linguistic evidence which indicates the words for this action are older in Africa than Asia, and appear later in Asia.
With noting of archaeological movement, along with genetic evdidence... it all goes together..
It goes together to argue against an invisible opponent that only you seem to have words with.
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: If you say so.... Stop quoting Wiki Kalnoji...
You keep making yourself look like an ignoramus, for real. Obviously I was correct in my statement that you are ignorant about Trenton and the other sources posted, because if you were familiar, you would have known that Trenton among others, uses ‘’post cranial’’ to refer to skeletons with the cranium excluded.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia Trenton W. Holliday (Mar., 2000) Abstract There is long-standing disagreement (....) In this paper I attempt to resolve this issue by examining postcranial measures reflective of body shape.
The prefix ‘’post’’ means after or beyond, as in: a post-war period, or post-partum depression. Both examples are in agreement with the way I have used the term throughout this thread.
Like I said: You can't even get it right when going off topic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Originally posted by Kalonji: I've provided evidence for the above, ________________________________________ Where kalonji? I've asked you numerous times, where is your evidence??
Can you point out to me where I said that, I can’t answer your question when you leave out the surrounding context.
You know exactly what I'm talking about, how about quote me, quoting you and it will all be clear.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: This is what you call a fallacy, case and point, I never said the Natufians were cold adapted.
Correct, you said ‘’more cold adapted’’.
Yea indeed I am correct, wherein you're caught making things up, huh?
Perhaps you should've asked what I meant by more cold adapted. Instead of saying what I posted made no sense.
Obviously you didn't (probably still don't) know the Natufians emerged from two separate groups with different identified cultures, wherein more cold adapted limbs than tropical Africans would be logical when found.
The reason I said this, as explained to you, is because its pretty much well known that the Natufians emerged out of the combination of two separate cultures.
One already in SW Asia, identified as Kebaran, and the Mushabians coming from Africa.
From this one can conclude that limb proportions of these individuals might be intermediate, somewhat more cold adapted etc...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: And you also used Brace’s cranio-facial measurements that were based on 4 crania to say something about Natufians in general. LOL.
No Kalonji, quote me saying this.
This is your misinterpretation of what I said.
Nowhere did I mention I was making a generalized statement about the Natufians off of Brace's samples.
As noted, Natufian samples, other than Brace's have shown what one would deem "Negroid" characteristics.
They are identified as Natufians due to their specific culture, which can be distinguished.
And since this Natufian culture is known to have arose out of two combining ethnicities from Africa and SW Asia.
My statement was logical, yes, the Natufians did show somewhat more cold adapted limbs while also clustering with what one would deem "Negroid" (Niger-Congo) and wouldn't be illogical.
Ex. read Evergreens post on Zakrweski wherein I agreed.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Besides, the only Africans who do not display this tropical characteristic, would be sub-tropical populations like the Khoi and San.
Aaaaaand that is relevant because…?
Well genius, the point is as follows who would these somewhat more cold adapted Natufians align with other than mixed north Africans or sub-tropical Khoisans?
It's a question asking you about what Africans you know of that display a more less tropically adapted limb proportion besides Khoisan or the Eurasian mixed north Africans.
Point being is when I know a population to be mixed (like Natufians were), the limb proportions showing a somewhat more cold adapted ratio, with cranio-facial characteristics aligning with "Negroid" (Niger-Congo) samples is purely logical, considering what we know about their origins.
What we know is that Natufians arose from these two groups, Kebarans and Mushabians.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: How do you say they "didnt", wherein the next sentence, you say they did?
But only Braces samples? This makes absolutely no sense.
If Braces samples signifies this in four remains, how can you say they did not? You can't!!
Other samples of Natufians analyzed have been noted to resemble modern Africans, that have been deemed "Negroid".
Huh..? You mean you’re so ignorant that you can’t even comprehend how 4 crania may not be representive of an ethnic group, much less an entire population that contained at least two ethnic groups?
No dunce, anyway you stated...
-In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers . 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.
^^Those samples Brace analyzed were Natufians, hence Natufians did resemble Niger Congo speakers.
Hence you CAN'T say Natufians did not resemble etc...because they actually did.
Regardless of how many samples in the bunch they were still Natufians.
What you're doing is excluding samples as being representative of Natufians becuase they contrast, my point is the contrast is logical considering the Natufian origins.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB] Dude.. 4 crania from the African component that practiced Natufians culture fell in between Niger Congo speakers and Nubians in Brace’s plot.
How do you know they practiced Natufian culture?
Where is this stated in the document? How do you know they aren't Natufians?
I've read Brace, therefore when he says Niger Congo, I know he means "Negroid", which aligns with other older analyses, as mentioned in earlier posts, who have studied Natufians coming to the conclusion of "Negroid" cranio-facial characteristics.
The above along with all other data tells me that the Natufians not displaying a tropically adapted body plan akin to modern tropical Africans, doesnt necessarily insinuate that they can not still align with Africans cranio-facially or that Natufians became African later on.
This is logical, and most likely to happen when a population from SW Asia and Africa combine.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: This doesn’t take the Eurasian component into account.
How do you know exactly that it doesnt take the Eurasian component into account? I'll wait for this evidence...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If Brace included the other component, the result would have been different. But you just don’t get it, or you don’t want to get it.
Taken into account all evidence on Natufian remains archaeologically, genetically, linguistically etc... the Eurasian and African culture was equal.
Therefore regardless of the results, it's not surprising.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: 50% of Keita’s Badarian sample fell in the range of what his Gabonese sample was capable of expressing, but this doesn’t mean that both groups clustered in Keitas study.
The Badarian and Gabonese didn't combine to create the Natufian culture, Kebarans and Mushabians did.
Therefore there can be either or in the Natufian population and ones cranio-facial or limb proportions has absolutely nothing to do with it, instead its the cultural significance.
Boils back down to the fact that its know that there was an African component and a SW. Asian component that contributed to the rise of the Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: So I’mma put it up here again, and I dare you to say I’m wrong: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: -In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.
^I’m curious to see if your hard headedness will push you to keep arguing over something you’ve obviously lost.
Dumb dumb see above.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Really? Where have you provided evidence for this? Please specify. Remember Natufians arose late Mesolithic. So provide evidence.
One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972)
See the word ‘’appearing’’ and the word ‘’latest’’? What does it mean when something ‘’appears’’ in the ‘’latest’’ part of a phase (Natufian hunters)?
Certainly doesn't mean Africans weren't present beforehand as noted through all disciplines, unless you think Africans only come in "Negroid traits", do you?
^^Point above, just because one doesn't fit a "Negroid trait" profile doesn't make one not African.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: 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.
Indeed a clear link, not a later contribution to it.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Note that Brace’s choice of words imply the same, in that the African traits he discusses don’t just pertain to ANY Epipalaeolithic Natufian, but specifically the Natufian that was contemporary, and involved in the making of the things we associate with the neolithic age.
Ok, and? I'm telling you that Africans were a main contributor to the Natufian adaptation.
They weren't latecomers, as you seem to think, and have fallen short of providing evidence for.
Africans introduced practices into SW. Asia of which were never used beforehand, the combination of cultures gave rise to the Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: It just baffles me that you missed me quoting this before, and that you’re apparently not even aware of what Angel and others have been saying all along. This is what I had posted before, and you have yet to respond to it, and even worse, you keep acting like I haven’t shown it.
You're baffled because you're just learning.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.
Change of race? Are you serious? The Badarians differed from later dynastic Egyptians in limb proportions, and are noted to be due to more Nilotic influxes, does this mean that the Badarians weren't African? Or that the Badarians weren't Egyptians?
Change of race? You still believe in race huh? So is a an African who is not extremely tropically adapted not as African as others who simply display a tropical profile, not extreme?
Apparently some Euro-nuts assume that the population of Egypt arose as white and became more African later on due to this incidence of more tropical limbs during later dynasties.
Is that what you're trying to imply here?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years.
Exactly, and judging by your inability to grasp the meaning of ‘’appearing negroid traits’’ in Natufians ‘’latest hunters’’ in Angels words, you clearly haven’t absorbed much.
Sorry kid, but "appearing" and "latest hunters" doesn't imply that the Natufians became more African later in time.
Try again. As noted many Africans do not fit a "Negroid trait" profile.
Provide specific evidence stating that the Natufian culture is older than the African migration into SW. Asia, I'm waiting....
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Are you slow?
"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." ---Bar Yosef
No, not slow, but you obviously are! According to that quote, Bar Yosef makes no claims about a co-creation event.
Damn kid, you're slow, the point is I'm debunking your claim that the Natufian culture was already in place before the African immigration, wherein its stated that the overflow from African played a DEFINITE role.
For your inquiries read...
Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest. Asia: an archaeological perspective. O. BAR-YOSEF.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: No kid, I quoted that in reference to Ehret and his linguistic evidence which indicates the words for this action are older in Africa than Asia, and appear later in Asia.
With noting of archaeological movement, along with genetic evdidence... it all goes together..
It goes together to argue against an invisible opponent that only you seem to have words with.
No, it goes against you stating that Natufian culture arose before the African migration into the Levant. Still awaiting your evidence.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Bar-Yosef the Natufian culture emerged from the mixing of the Kebaran (already indigenous to the Levant) and the Mushabian (migrants into the Levant from North Africa). In particular, evidence demonstrates a strong Sub-Saharan African presence within the region, especially among the Epipalaeolithic Natufians of Israel. These studies further argue that over time the Sub-Saharan influences would have been "diluted" out of the genetic picture due to interbreeding between Neolithic migrants from the Near East and indigenous hunter-gatherers whom they came in contact with.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Point being is when I know a population to be mixed (like Natufians were), the limb proportions showing a somewhat more cold adapted ratio, with cranio-facial characteristics aligning with "Negroid"
^There you go again, you take different results from different studies and you amplify it over Natufians in general, instead of making each sample speak for itself. When you say, they had a somewhat cold adapted physique, I can only guess what you mean with that, but let’s assume you meant that put together, the two extremes (African and Eurasian) come out intermediate when measured. Why would you take the average of their physique, but take the extreme of their cranio facial features? That makes absolutely no sense. If you say they had on average a somewhat cold adapted bodyplan, you have to do the same with their general cranio facial features, and give the average of that too.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: (Niger-Congo) samples is purely logical, considering what we know about their origins.
It’s not logical at all The Lachish population is something like a déjà vu in Pharaonic times, and it can reasonably be argued that this Levantine population had the same mixed qualities, that Natufians as a whole would have had. Craniofacially though, the Lachish population as a whole ceases to classify among black Africans, and they averaged craniofacially near a sample from the Maghreb.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: What we know is that Natufians arose from these two groups, Kebarans and Mushabians.
No, ‘’we’’ don’t know anything. What we know is that Brace and other specifically point out that the samples with African affinity were among the latest Natufian hunters. You’re entitled to your own beliefs though.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: No dunce, anyway you stated... -In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers . 4 specimens from Brace's sample did. ^^Those samples Brace analyzed were Natufians, hence Natufians did resemble Niger Congo speakers. Hence you CAN'T say Natufians did not resemble etc...because they actually did. Regardless of how many samples in the bunch they were still Natufians.
YOU are the dunce. AGAIN, it has NOT been demonstrated that Natufians cluster with Niger Congo speakers. Just like Nubians did NOT cluster with Europeans in the study below, but 7% did.
...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," (…) Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.
You are reduced to nitpicking and arguing over semantics, but I already know that desperate people do desperate things. Anyone who has read my posts in this thread knows that the only proper way to read that sentence is:
Natufians (as a whole) did not resemble Niger Congo speakers.Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: What you're doing is excluding samples as being representative of Natufians becuase they contrast, my point is the contrast is logical considering the Natufian origins.
Yeah, keep making desperate accusations.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: How do you know they practiced Natufian culture? Where is this stated in the document? How do you know they aren't Natufians?
^LOL, people, this is a prime example of someone who is arguing with what he is hearing in his head, instead of what is actually said. It is clear that by me saying:
4 crania from the African component that practiced Natufians culture
That I was simply referring to them (the four crania) belonging to Natufians, but the turd thinks in his mind that I am talking about extra-terrestrials or something. What on earth do you think the ‘’component’’ word refers to? Component of what? Natufians of course, you turd.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: The above along with all other data tells me that the Natufians not displaying a tropically adapted body plan akin to modern tropical Africans, doesnt necessarily insinuate that they can not still align with Africans cranio-facially or that Natufians became African later on.
You are officially talking out of your neck. You make absolutely no sense. Can you show me ONE example where two populations as distinct as Mesolithic Nile valley specimens and Mesolithic Eurasians mix, and come out still resembling the African extreme craniofacially? **Sigh**. He still doesn’t realize that the African extreme is noted in samples that were predominantly eerrrr….. African. LOL. How do I know this? Dude.. the samples described by Keith Brace and Angel make no mention of appearing mixed, and even more so, these late comers with African affinity all had several things in common, and that is that they had occipital buns, dolichocephalic calvaria, broad nasal aperatures, prognathism, lack of prominent chins, and that they were short statured (like later dynastic Egyptians) and had thick thighbones according to Keith. These features distinguish these latecomers from the Eurasian Natufians that were already present. Your entire ‘’mixed but with African cranio-facial features’’ theory goes out the window. I now know that your obsessive need to make Natufians in general cranio-facially like Brace’s Niger Congo speakers is intrinsically linked to your co creation and mixed race fantasy. MOMs reasoning: Cranio facially they have to display this one thing, in order for me to keep believing - in the face of evidence to the contrary - that there were no Natufians before these ‘’negroid’’ folks. If I accept that Natufians did not always resemble Niger Congo speakers, I might have to deal with the thought that there were Natufians before the African migration.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: This is logical, and most likely to happen when a population from SW Asia and Africa combine.
LOLLLL. WRONG. Note what I wrote about the Lachish population above, and how they averaged out near the Magrebian sample used in Keita’s plot, even though Gabonese, Kermatians, Badarians and dynastic Egyptians were available to cluster with.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: How do you know exactly that it doesnt take the Eurasian component into account? I'll wait for this evidence...
I now know you are completely ignorant about the literature on the Natufians. Do you even read or do you just skim through it? According to Brace:
If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a SubSaharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. - BracePosts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If Brace included the other component, the result would have been different. But you just don’t get it, or you don’t want to get it.
Taken into account all evidence on Natufian remains archaeologically, genetically, linguistically etc... the Eurasian and African culture was equal. Therefore regardless of the results, it's not surprising.
Translation: Kalonji, I know you’re right about the distorted conclusions one can arrive at by using 4 crania, and that this means I was wrong about ‘’Niger congo’’ features among Natufians in general, but I’m just going to act like I didn’t notice that and go on talking about other stuff.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: 50% of Keita’s Badarian sample fell in the range of what his Gabonese sample was capable of expressing, but this doesn’t mean that both groups clustered in Keitas study.
The Badarian and Gabonese didn't combine to create the Natufian culture, Kebarans and Mushabians did.
What kind of whack retort is that? The point of me bringing it up was to educate you on the fact that a positioning of 4 Natufian crania between Nubians and Niger congo speakers is nothing to make generalizations with.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Certainly doesn't mean Africans weren't present beforehand as noted through all disciplines, unless you think Africans only come in "Negroid traits", do you? ^^Point above, just because one doesn't fit a "Negroid trait" profile doesn't make one not African.
Yes, the Mesolithic Nile valley population that brought grindstones into the Levant DID come predominanty in ‘’Negroid traits’’. Negroid traits that as evidenced by Wadi Halfans, clustered with ‘’sub-saharan Africans’’ before they did with later dynastic Egyptians and Nubians. Even if we leave open the possibility that not so broad featured Africans migrated as well before these latecomers described by all anthropologists, the burden is on you to prove that. And even if you can prove that they did, the burden is on you again, to explain why the other extreme (Mesolithic Eurasians) that was present, doesn’t resemble elongated nile valley Africans. For one, they had a low frequency of occipital buns and had broader calvaria, prominent chins etc. This is why for the thousandth time, but still not penetrating, Arthur mentioned these features, and how they ‘’appreared’’ in the pre-existing Natufian area, and how these features distinguished the bearers from those that did not display them.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: 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.
Indeed a clear link, not a later contribution to it.
^Ok, now he is officially sliming his way out of this with an answer that doesn’t even make sense.
Can someone who is knowledgeable and who follows this discussion please step in and tell him what’s up so we can end this?
Note how the slimeball totally ignores the fact that Brace was very specific about the era (latest hunters who transitioned into the Neolithic) of Natufian that had ‘’Negroid’’ features:
the Epipalaeolithic Natufian (…) from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa
This is an EXACT mirror of what Angel said, but just in different words. Words that somehow just keep flying past MOMs head
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.
Change of race? Are you serious? The Badarians differed from later dynastic Egyptians in limb proportions, and are noted to be due to more Nilotic influxes, does this mean that the Badarians weren't African? Or that the Badarians weren't Egyptians? Change of race? You still believe in race huh? So is a an African who is not extremely tropically adapted not as African as others who simply display a tropical profile, not extreme? Apparently some Euro-nuts assume that the population of Egypt arose as white and became more African later on due to this incidence of more tropical limbs during later dynasties. Is that what you're trying to imply here?
You dumb, unread superturd. LOL It wasn’t me who wrote that you turd!! It is a quote from someone who despite using a typological approach was in the environment and who actually had knowledge about the Natufians. Again, you have show that you are totally unread on this subject, because if you were, you would’ve know that it came from McCrown and Keith.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years.
Exactly, and judging by your inability to grasp the meaning of ‘’appearing negroid traits’’ in Natufians ‘’latest hunters’’ in Angels words, you clearly haven’t absorbed much.
Sorry kid, but "appearing" and "latest hunters" doesn't imply that the Natufians became more African later in time. Try again. As noted many Africans do not fit a "Negroid trait" profile.
Note how he used to hammer on, and fight fervently for ‘’Niger Congo’’- like Natufians, and now when it is shown that these ‘’Negroid’’ craniofacial traits pertain to specific samples, instead of the entire population, he tries to slimeball his way out of it by using African diversity. Either they resembled Niger-Congo speakers, or they came in many types LOL. Make up your mind.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Damn kid, you're slow, the point is I'm debunking your claim that the Natufian culture was already in place before the African immigration, wherein its stated that the overflow from African played a DEFINITE role.
And how does having played ‘’a definite role’’ substantiate a co-creation? Can a definite role not be contributed at a later stage? You dumb turd. Stop over inferring from you sources.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: No, it goes against you stating that Natufian culture arose before the African migration into the Levant.
How exactly?
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Still awaiting your evidence.
Well, it doesn’t get any clearer than the examination of excavated bones. If you don’t accept examination of bones, and start to yap about different types of Africans that could have migrated, we are entering the territory of belief, speculation and wishful thinking instead of science. I’m not going to go there, but have fun in indulging and emerging yourself in it.
It is clear by McCrown, Keith and Brace that prior to the migration of the African group, the indiginous Levantines resembled upper Paleolithic Levantines. There is no room nor evidence for elongated Africans or other any other type of Africans. And you know this, since you yourself argued against potential other ethnic groups.
MOM BEFORE BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT THAT THE AFRICANS NATUFIANS WERE LATECOMERS
''I don't think of another population of Natufians that might be considered. Do you?''
''But my point is that what needs to be understood as mentioned is that Natufians arose as a consequnce of two populations coming together,''
''so in essence there might be some Natufians who resemble more the Mushabaens from Africa, and some who resemble more those who were in southwest Asia, or even a combination of the two.''
''Yes there were two different populations who originally came together to form the Natufian culture,''
''Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers
''Other samples of Natufians analyzed have been noted to resemble modern Africans, that have been deemed "Negroid".''
MOM AFTER BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT THAT THE AFRICANS NATUFIANS WERE LATECOMERS
''Try again. As noted many Africans do not fit a "Negroid trait" profile.''
''Certainly doesn't mean Africans weren't present beforehand as noted through all disciplines, unless you think Africans only come in "Negroid traits", do you?''
You are a JOKE. Why don’t you give it up, just like you gave up your position that my use of post-cranial was incorrect.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Sub-Saharan influences would have been "diluted" out of the genetic picture due to interbreeding between Neolithic migrants from the Near East and indigenous hunter-gatherers whom they came in contact with.
Mindo, throw in the towel already, your ego's out of control
The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form
C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox,¶ A. Russell Nelson, Sotiris K. Manolis,** and Pan Qifeng††Received September 20, 2005.
excerpt:
In this figure, one can see a clear link between the Niger-Congo sample and the Natufians. The Prehistoric/Recent Northeast African sample also has a subsequent link to the Niger-Congo sample in Fig. 3. Yet the D2 values in Table 3 show that it is slightly closer to Late Prehistoric Eurasia than to the Algerian Neolithic, Modern Europe, and Modern Mediterranean and that it is farthest from the Niger-Congo, the Natufians, and the Basques. Although the Algerian Neolithic sample has an even more residual link to this cluster, the D2 figures in Table 3 show that it is almost as far from the Niger-Congo twig as from the Basques and Natufians. The generally high D2 values for the Natufian sample in Table 3 are almost certainly a reflection of the very small sample size.
The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
It all boils down to Kalonji's limited knowledge on the Natufians. As it's clear he thinks Africans came later in time and Natufians were already established. WRONG!! If anyone has access to jstor for the following article so this clown Kalonji can be put to rest quickly, let me know. Seems he has too much time on his hands and likes to cloud the thread with nonsense that he barely knows about...
"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."
Not a role later in time to something that was already established (as Kalonji foolishly thinks), but a definite role in the establishment, of the Natufian adaptation. We all know what established means don't we?
posted
^ Absolutely no response to my refutation of your laughable claims, that you've made throughout this thread. Instead you just run and hide to your last little refuge: whether or not the culture was co-created.
Well, I'm waiting. Just don't distort my use of ''Latecomers''.
I made it clear that the African type was present and involved with the making of the things we associate with neolithic. This has no bearing on Natufian culture, that obviously pre dated the transition from hunting to farming.
And the act of farming in and of itself is not culture, but a technological achievement.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last refuge? Throughout this whole thread it has been my position that the Natufians arose out of a combination of two separate cultures. The Kebarans and Mushabians. Natufian culture does not pre-date the African migration (as you think it does) as its clearly stated SPECIFICALLY that the overflow from N.E. Africa played a DEFINITE ROLE in the ESTABLISHMENT of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn THEN led to the EMERGENCE of farming.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic