posted
You're taking too long so I'll put it up here myself
ad·ap·ta·tion (dp-tshn) n. 1. a. The act or process of adapting. b. The state of being adapted. 2. a. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation. b. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel. 3. Biology An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment. 4. Physiology The responsive adjustment of a sense organ, such as the eye, to varying conditions, such as light intensity. 5. Change in behavior of a person or group in response to new or modified surroundings.
Now please tell me 1.How does this contradict what I have said about Natufian culture predating the transition into the neolithic 2.How does Bar Yosef's ''Adaptation'' relate to ''Natufian'' culture.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: 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.
In addition, the below clearly tells us that the Kebaran/Mushabian period precedes the Natufians. Mushabians came from Africa.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: 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.
In addition, the below clearly tells us that the Kebaran/Mushabian period precedes the Natufians. Mushabians came from Africa.
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)
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^This is what I've been stating this whole time.
doesn't it imply that Mushabian's came later and also that their traits were laster diluted by the larger population of Kebaran? I don't know if that goes against your argument or not. I might have to change camps.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^How can the idea that the Natufians arose OUT OF the emergence of Kebarans and Mushabians, suggest that the Mushabians came later? Lol. It doesn't, it means that the Mushabians migrating into the Levant pre-dates Natufians, and then that from the combination of Kebarans and Mushabians the Natufian culture THEN emerged. As you can note in my post above, the geometric Kebaran/Mushabian period (14,000 - 12,000 B.P.) predates the Natufians.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
And the following is from the same wiki page birdbrain got that quote from:
Ricaut et al. (2008)[11] associate the Sub-Saharan influences detected in the Natufian samples with the migration of E1b1b lineages from East Africa to the Levant and then into Europe. Entering the late mesolithic Natufian culture, the E1b1b1a2 (E-V13) sub-clade has been associated with the spread of farming from the Middle East into Europe either during or just before the Neolithic transition.
''According to Bar Yosef'' Can you name other scholars who came to that same conclusion independantly instead of those who have used Bar Yosefs work.?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you should stop quoting Wiki Kalonji? Did I not suggest this to you already? It's better to get a hold of the official report as I have done below. Ricaut 2008 below...
Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology, Oct 2008 by Ricaut, F X, Waelkens, M
quote:From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that subSaharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations.
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 et al. 2005) and from archeological 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. 2001; 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), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: ^^How can the idea that the Natufians arose OUT OF the emergence of Kebarans and Mushabians, suggest that the Mushabians came later? Lol. It doesn't, it means that the Mushabians migrating into the Levant pre-dates Natufians, and then that from the combination of Kebarans and Mushabians the Natufian culture THEN emerged. As you can note in my post above, the geometric Kebaran/Mushabian period (14,000 - 12,000 B.P.) predates the Natufians.
the sequence may have been Africans settling into the Levant, over time becoming Kebaran Asians. Then later came the Mushabian Africans who merged into the larger Kebaran losing some of their African traits. The result of this merger including it's cultural elements became Natufians.
doesn't it imply that Mushabian's came later and also that their traits were laster diluted by the larger population of Kebaran?
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Dude.. just shut it, will ya? That Bar Yosef quote is obviously in agreement with his position, stop twisting and turning data to fit your pre-conceived notions.
No, the African componant didn't necessarily lose their African features upon arriving in the Levant, and no, the Kebaran associated population wasn't foreign to asia.
The reason why Bar Yosef vs Brace, Keith etc diverge is because of the use of different scientific disciplines. But African material culture doesn't necessarily indicate demic diffusion, so even though I'd like to know what he (Bar Yosef) is basing his claims on, I'm not really impressed by it until skeletal remains with African affinity are found in Early Natufian.
Bar Yosef found Melon seeds from Sudan in early Natufian, predating the transition to the neolithic, and he is trying to push back the date of Natufian agriculture, probably so Israel can compete with earlier dates that are now found in Syria.
I will investigate further and post my findings
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Dude.. just shut it, will ya? That Bar Yosef quote is obviously in agreement with his position, stop twisting and turning data to fit your pre-conceived notions.
No, the African componant didn't necessarily lose their African features upon arriving in the Levant, and no, the Kebaran associated population wasn't foreign to asia.
Dude, I'm not a dude. It seems hard to win an argument saying "didn't necessarily". I seem to be the only one half following the battle between you and MOM. Admittedly I'm uncertain what both of your basic positions are. Could you sum up for the viewers in about four sentences what the two sides to this argument are and if it amounts to yes or no positions on "were the Natufians cold-adapted" ? Also I'm not clear if this topic relates to Egypt or not.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ All info and progress is contained in this thread, all you have to do is actually READ it.
-MOM thinks the African cranio-facial meassurements obtained by Brace and others pertain to the Natufian people in general, and that these features are there dispite admixture of Eurasian and Africans. And that this admixture is visible in less tropical, or as he says, more cold adapted limb proportions, but less in their facial features.
-Obviously, I'm not buying that, I think that even though certain samples maintained strong African affinity, these should be considered as predominantly African, instead of already mixed but retaining strong African cranio-facial features. I argue that Brace's positioning of 4 crania near Niger-Congo speakers is hardly evidence to amplify anything over Natufians in general, let alone that they generally resembled Niger-Congo speakers. This extreme generalisation leaves out the nothion that there were folks present that did NOT have these features, and that these folks were NOT included by Brace, Angel and others when they spoke of later migrants that came from Africa. The same authors above mention them seperately, and as evidenced by their specific summerising of features, there was a clear differences between the African and Eurasian Natufians.
-This causes MOM and I to clash, since the distinctness of these two populations is in contrast with his view that they were admixed from the start and that Natufians are the result of these two population coming together and admixing.
-The fact that I stand by Arthur, Keith, McCrown and Brace when it comes to the time that these Africans migrated to the Levant and started to practice Natufian culture (I say practice since it is amore accurate term) and he stands by Bar Yosef and Ehret in that they were present from the start attributes to our difference of opinion.
-I also think that Trenton's ''somewhat cold adapted'' Natufians shouldn't be associated with Brace's and Angel's Natufians, until it is demonstrated that Trenton used either of the datasets, that Angel, McCrown Brace etc have used.
-He says these limb proportions can be attributed to all Natufians, since they are all Natufians that spread out from their initial blend if I understand it correctly
I think this view is flawed because ''Natufian'' is not a static thing that remained the same throughout their history, to let one or a couple analysed samples speak for all Natufian samples. This is why I frequently say that so and so practiced Natufian culture, instead of saying they are Natufians. It is a reminder that we're dealing with a people with a common set of habits and cultural features instead of people with a distinct look. MOM says he agrees with this, but then he goes back to say that they in general resembled Niger-Congo speakers. And that they were in general less tropically adapted. When it is in my opinion better to view this population in a sample per sample context, because what one sample displays may not be the case for the other. This is the case everywhere, but even more when we're dealing with two distinct populations in the same area.
MOM, if you feel I have misrepresented your positions, you can clarify them, but this is my understand of where it is at
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Neolithic of the Levant (1978) A.M.T. Moore [Oxford University][b]
[b]MESOLITHIC 1 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
The people of Mesolithic 1 used both rock shelters and open stations as habitation sites. The shelter sites, among them Ksar Akil - Jiita II - Hayonim - Kebara - Wadi Madamagh were frequently situated in wadis on the fringes of the hill country ...
MESOLITHIC 1 ECONOMY AND SOCIETY
At Hayonim the faunal sample was small ..... Gazelle was the most numerous species (See 129ff in Page *1) with fallow deer second. Cattle - red deer - caprines were present in small quantities as well as numerous other species of rodents and carnivores. Hares were very common and it appears that terrestrial molluscs were also eaten. Marine shells have been found at a number of inland Mesolithic 1 sites and also nearer the sea at Hayonim (See Page 137 in *1). Many of these were decorative objects brought up frcm the Mediterranean but some were edible species. It seems likely that fish and molluscs would have been eaten if only in small quantities where they were available. Most Mesolithic 1 sites have very thin occupation deposits indicating that they were occupied briefly perhaps on a seasonal basis. The presence of amphibian species but not reptiles in the fauna from Hayonim may be taken as evidence that the cave was too wet in the winter for human occupation (See Page 138 in *1); it was probably only inhabited during the summer ...
MESOLITHIC 2
Archaeological evidence from sites in Palestine and on the Lebanese coast suggests that Mesolithic 2 developed directly from Mesolithic 1. At Kebara - Nahal Oren - Hayonim - Jiita II the Mesolithic 2 layers were stratified immediately above those of Mesolithic 1 without any serious break in the sequence. There were also enough similarities in the cultural equipment of the two stages from these and other sites to indicate that Mesolithic 2 developed directly from Mesolithic 1 at least in these regions ...
MESOLITHIC 2 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
One new feature of shelter sites used by the people of Mesolithic 2 was that the area of concentrated occupation was frequently on the terrace in front rather then in the shelter itself. This was so at Mugharet Wad - Nahal Oren - Qornet Rharra and probably Hayonim. Most of the larger Mesolithic 2 sites were situated in the foothills of the upland zones near permanent sources of water. Some of these like Hayonim - Nahal Oren - Mugharet Wad - Shukbah (Natufian Culture) were in wadis ...
MESOLITHIC ECONOMY AND SOCIETY
At Hayonim the area of the terrace and shelter was somewhat more than 1000 square metres (See Page 49 in *2) ..... The big Mesolithic 2 sites found in the southern Levant were a significant new group. They appear to have been inhabited by larger communities of people than before. Furthermore the occupation of these sites was more intensive and longer-term: the numerous species of mollusca and human commensals found in the Natufian layers at Hayonim are evidence for this (See Pages 135 and 138 in *1) ..... A recent study of the numerous human remains from Hayonim has shown that they probably all belonged to the same family (See Page 70 in *3). These individuals were buried at intervals throughout the period in which the Natufian deposit accumulated indicating long-term use of the site by at least one family. These large settlements were unknown before Mesolithic 2 ...
Mesolithic 1 corresponds with Kebaran, and Mesolithic 2 corresponds with Natufian.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [qb] ^^How can the idea that the Natufians arose OUT OF the emergence of Kebarans and Mushabians, suggest that the Mushabians came later? Lol. It doesn't, it means that the Mushabians migrating into the Levant pre-dates Natufians, and then that from the combination of Kebarans and Mushabians the Natufian culture THEN emerged. As you can note in my post above, the geometric Kebaran/Mushabian period (14,000 - 12,000 B.P.) predates the Natufians.
the sequence may have been Africans settling into the Levant, over time becoming Kebaran Asians. Then later came the Mushabian Africans who merged into the larger Kebaran losing some of their African traits. The result of this merger including it's cultural elements became Natufians.
doesn't it imply that Mushabian's came later and also that their traits were laster diluted by the larger population of Kebaran?
What does the highlighted part in my post above tell you?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
@ Kalonji, the following is and has been my position...
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: 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.
In addition, the below clearly tells us that the Kebaran/Mushabian period precedes the Natufians. Mushabians came from Africa.
Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology, Oct 2008 by Ricaut, F X, Waelkens, M
quote:From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that subSaharan genetic lineages (affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade; Underhill et al. 2001) have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey (E3b-M35 Y lineage; Cinniogclu et al. 2004; Luis et al. 2004), probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic (Cinniogelu et al. 2004; King et al. 2008; Lucotte and Mercier 2003; Luis et al. 2004; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Semino et al. 2004; Underhill et al. 2001). This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic-early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations.
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 et al. 2005) and from archeological 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. 2001; 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), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994).
^^My position has evidence for it, yours really doesn't. It's clear the Mushabians were in the Levant before the Natufian period, and that these Mushabians came from Africa. It's clear that the Kebarans and Mushabians were both present and noted to emerge to create the Natufian culture. You think the Africans were latecomers, but it's clear that they weren't.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: In sum, the various lines of evidence demonstrate cold, wet conditions during the geometric Kebaran/Mushabian period (14,000-12,000 B.P.), preceding the Natufian , a dry spell during the very early Natufian, a steady increase in arboreal pollen during the early Natufian, and an ensuing drier period during the late Natufian (Younger Dryas). An increase in humdity is documented during the early Holocene both from Mureybet in the middle Euphrates Valley in northern Syria, and from the Lower Jordan Valley.
I'm not sure what that quote is saying Either its saying that there was a mix of Kebaran and Mushabian culture at the same site that predated Natufian culture, or it says that both were present in the Levant.
Well if the first is true, it is in total disagreement with your position that the two came together to merge Natufian culture, since according to that interpretation of the quote, it took another 2000 years before ''Natufian'' came into being.
If the second is true, you've just proven how intellectually challenged you are.
If that was why you quoted it, and you thought your work was done by showing a Mushabian presence in the Levant that was contemporary with the Kebarans, you must think I'm as easily impressed as you apparently are
You have Mushabians who were according to this interpretation in the Levant, contemporary with the late kebarans? So now what? This is hardly a contradiction of my position that Africans were latecomers.
LOL. Connect the dots for us, what are you getting at? Like I said earlier, I'm not into speculations or wishful thinking so I'll ask you.. What are you getting at MOM?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: My position has evidence for it, yours really doesn't. It's clear the Mushabians were in the Levant before the Natufian period,
Ok, and it is not even disputed that this is true, but how exactly does it help your position that they co created it? LMFAO. What a nut.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: and that these Mushabians came from Africa.
Arguing with invisable opponants again?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: It's clear that the Kebarans and Mushabians were both present and noted to emerge to create the Natufian culture.
Not so fast bub Bar Yosef is building his case on archeological finds, Angel and the others on skeletal remains, and this is what matters in the end, not if African archeological findings were present contemporary with Kebara. There were African archeological finds near Kebera sinds 15.000 BP according to Bar yosef, if we go with Ehrets position that ground stones were borrowed from Africans. This is nothing new bub. The source I posted above makes it clear that the transition from Mesolithic 1 to Mesolithic 2 occured seamlessly, with predominantly Kebaran continuation. End of story
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: You think the Africans were latecomers, but it's clear that they weren't.
Cite specifically by what evidence, and no more quotes from opinionating researchers. I want the exact evidence that indicates the presence of skeletal remains of Africans in the Natufian regional cultural urheimhat. As long as this is not demonstrated, your position falls flat on its ass.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Archaeological evidence from sites in Palestine and on the Lebanese coast suggests that Mesolithic 2 developed directly from Mesolithic 1. At Kebara - Nahal Oren - Hayonim - Jiita II the Mesolithic 2 layers were stratified immediately above those of Mesolithic 1 without any serious break in the sequence. There were also enough similarities in the cultural equipment of the two stages from these and other sites to indicate that Mesolithic 2 developed directly from Mesolithic 1 at least in these regions ...
^The bolded part below says that Natufian was basically a continuation of Kebara. Hardly room for any outsiders to merge or co-create anything.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Graeme Barker notes "the similarities in the respective archaeological records of the Natufian culture of the Levant and of contemporary foragers in coastal North Africa across the late Pleistocene and early Holocene boundary".
Early Natufian (12,500–10,800 BC)
Late Natufian (10,800–9500 BC).
Which one of these phases is at the late Pleistocene and early Holocene boundary".
this is the exact Natufian phase that is associated with the following:
One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972)
that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. - Keith/McCrown
These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. - Keith/McCrown
There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. - Keith/McCrown
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. - Brace
Litterally wrong on all points you've made throughoutt this thread. Give it up bub. Just give it up.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: In sum, the various lines of evidence demonstrate cold, wet conditions during the geometric Kebaran/Mushabian period (14,000-12,000 B.P.), preceding the Natufian , a dry spell during the very early Natufian, a steady increase in arboreal pollen during the early Natufian, and an ensuing drier period during the late Natufian (Younger Dryas). An increase in humdity is documented during the early Holocene both from Mureybet in the middle Euphrates Valley in northern Syria, and from the Lower Jordan Valley.
I'm not sure what that quote is saying
I gave the link for the page. My point is that the quote clearly confirms that Mushabians (Africans) were in the Levant prior to the Natfufian period. Capice?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Either its saying that there was a mix of Kebaran and Mushabian culture at the same site that predated Natufian culture, or it says that both were present in the Levant.
No need to make up your own interpretation, perhaps you should read more about the Natufians and their origins, then you wouldnt have to rely on quotes here and there?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Well if the first is true, it is in total disagreement with your position that the two came together to merge Natufian culture, since according to that interpretation of the quote, it took another 2000 years before ''Natufian'' came into being.
Actually, its in total alignment with the position posited by mainstream academia.
Which is that Mushabian (African) and Kebaran (s.w. Asian) cultures both pre-date the Natufians culture, and that the combination of both cultures resulted in the rise of the Natufian.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: If that was why you quoted it, and you thought your work was done by showing a Mushabian presence in the Levant that was contemporary with the Kebarans, you must think I'm as easily impressed as you apparently are
No kid, the point is/was that you argue against the African contribution to the Natufian, supposedly because the Africans werent there and were latecomers.
When in actuality they were already present and played a definite role in the establishment of the Natfuian culture which arose out of the combination of Mushabians and Kebarans in the area prior to the Natufian
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You have Mushabians who were according to this interpretation in the Levant, contemporary with the late kebarans? So now what? This is hardly a contradiction of my position that Africans were latecomers.
Really? Hmm, my evidence shows that Africans (Mushabians) were in the Levant prior to the rise of Natufians (which right away debunks your premise that Africans were latecomers to the Levant) and that the integration of Mushabians and Kebarans are what gave rise to the Natufians.
Where have you shown any contradicting evidence to the above?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: LOL. Connect the dots for us, what are you getting at? Like I said earlier, I'm not into speculations or wishful thinking so I'll ask you.. What are you getting at MOM?
What am I getting at? You serious?
Well how about the basic point that Africans were not latecomers into the Natufian population, and were present prior to..?
They (Africans) were already present in the Levant with numerous disperals begininng in the Mesolithic?
Where do you want me to start?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: My position has evidence for it, yours really doesn't. It's clear the Mushabians were in the Levant before the Natufian period,
Ok, and it is not even disputed that this is true, but how exactly does it help your position that they co created it? LMFAO. What a nut.
Come on, are you slow? This disproves your notion that Africans were latecomers.
This also gives precedence archaeologically to the evidence shows that the Natufians arose out of the combination of Mushabian and Kebaran cultures.
As to why you keep asking for anthropological skeletal data when its already noted firstly that archaeologically and linguistically the Mushabians were Africans, is beyond me.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: and that these Mushabians came from Africa.
Arguing with invisable opponants again?
You must be this invisible opponent? Learn how to correctly spell in the English language, and please don't say it was a typo.
Anyway, here's the point, which would fall right back on the fact that you believe Africans were not present in the Levant prior to the rise of the Natfuian culture.
The fact that Mushabians were in the Levant, and that they have been noted to be African, on top of the fact they have also been noted to be direct contributors to the establishment of Natufian culture, literally destroys whatever you've been thinking, reading, or lack thereof.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: It's clear that the Kebarans and Mushabians were both present and noted to emerge to create the Natufian culture.
Not so fast bub Bar Yosef is building his case on archeological finds, Angel and the others on skeletal remains, and this is what matters in the end, not if African archeological findings were present contemporary with Kebara.
Actually you're wrong, basically because a specific culture, not just simply findings has been noted to be African by Yosef and others, along with matching skeletal data, as noted;
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 et al. 2005) and from archeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987).---Ricaut
The archaeoligical data, clearly Afican per Yosef, the Linguistic data speaks African per linguist Ehert, both have noted this culture of Mushabians in the Levant prior to the rise of Natufians and specifically as main cotributors with Kebarans playing a definite role in the establishment of the Natufians.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: There were African archeological finds near Kebera sinds 15.000 BP according to Bar yosef,
There was a specific identifiable culture called Mushabians in the Levant prior to the Natufian according to Yosef.
.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: if we go with Ehrets position that ground stones were borrowed from Africans.
Ehret notes linguistical agricutural patterns first appearing in Africa and later in southwest Asia which are pretty much undeniable. Unless you have data syaing otherwise?
Which basically puts Ehret and Yosef together.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB]This is nothing new bub. The source I posted above makes it clear that the transition from Mesolithic 1 to Mesolithic 2 occured seamlessly, with predominantly Kebaran continuation. End of story
Where is it stated that there was a Kebaran continuation? All it states is that Mesolithic 2 developed from Mesolithic 1.
How would that be the end of story when acrahaeologically, linguistically and skeletally its been shown that Africans (Mushabians) were present before and at the rise of Natufian culture?
You have no point here, sorry. Unless you'd like to elaborate specifically with sources where it states the Mesolithic 1 is Kebaran and with coninuity emerged as the Natufian culture in Mesolithic 2. The above quote simply does not agree with you, sorry.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB] [QUOTE] Originally posted by Mindovermatter: You think the Africans were latecomers, but it's clear that they weren't.
Cite specifically by what evidence, and no more quotes from opinionating researchers. I want the exact evidence that indicates the presence of skeletal remains of Africans in the Natufian regional cultural urheimhat. As long as this is not demonstrated, your position falls flat on its ass.
This is why I know you're unread, simply because all of the sources you have just learned about are what have been used to establish this Mushabian/Kebaran connection, ultimately giving rise to the Natufians.
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 et al. 2005) and from archeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987)..[...]..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).
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: Archaeological evidence from sites in Palestine and on the Lebanese coast suggests that Mesolithic 2 developed directly from Mesolithic 1. At Kebara - Nahal Oren - Hayonim - Jiita II the Mesolithic 2 layers were stratified immediately above those of Mesolithic 1 without any serious break in the sequence. There were also enough similarities in the cultural equipment of the two stages from these and other sites to indicate that Mesolithic 2 developed directly from Mesolithic 1 at least in these regions ...
^The bolded part below says that Natufian was basically a continuation of Kebara. Hardly room for any outsiders to merge or co-create anything.
Yea well in actuality contrary to what you believe that quote says nothing at all specifically about Kebarans specifically continuing into Natufians at all, but simply that the Mesolithic 1 continues into Mesolithic 2. Try again?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: The Meoslithic 2 is noted to Late Natufian (10,800–9500 BC).
Sorry, but the following clearly shows the Africans in the Levant prior to the Natufians...
In sum, the various lines of evidence demonstrate cold, wet conditions during the geometric Kebaran/Mushabian period (14,000-12,000 B.P.), preceding the NatufianPosts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: The Meoslithic 2 is noted to Late Natufian (10,800–9500 BC).
Sorry, but the following clearly shows the Africans in the Levant prior to the Natufians...
In sum, the various lines of evidence demonstrate cold, wet conditions during the geometric Kebaran/Mushabian period (14,000-12,000 B.P.), preceding the Natufian
Like I said before, I believe kalonji is taking your account of the Kebaran/Mushabian period and saying that the Kebarans Asians were first (although once were African in the distant past)
The Mushabians, African migrants were second who came after the Kebarans into the same area. The two groups merged and lastly, later this becomes the Natufians. It depends on where you place the starting point.
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Actually, its in total alignment with the position posited by mainstream academia.
Which is that Mushabian (African) and Kebaran (s.w. Asian) cultures both pre-date the Natufians culture, and that the combination of both cultures resulted in the rise of the Natufian.
Then the following should be easy for you. What is the regional cultural urheimhat and what specific evidence is found at that site, in the earliest Natufian layer that substantiates an African co creation of the Natufians? I have asked you this before, but no answers, just like all the other things that you dropped, after realizing you had no point to begin with. Again, don’t give me Bar Yosefs conclusions, I want the exact material evidence that substantiates an African co-creation of Mesolithic 2 from Mesolithic 1.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: No kid, the point is/was that you argue against the African contribution to the Natufian, supposedly because the Africans werent there and were latecomers.
Huh, so now I argue against African contribution right..? Get your eyes checked bub.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: When in actuality they were already present and played a definite role in the establishment of the Natfuian culture which arose out of the combination of Mushabians and Kebarans in the area prior to the Natufian
Do you know the difference between ‘’a definite role’’ and having ‘’co-created’’ something? You’re starting to sound like hammer, who likes to repeat the same words robotically too. Show me: What is the regional cultural urheimhat and what specific evidence is found at that site, in the earliest Natufian layer that substantiates an African co creation of the Natufians?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Really? Hmm, my evidence shows that Africans (Mushabians) were in the Levant prior to the rise of Natufians
Exactly, so what’s the problem? LOL, it only makes sense that their entrance into the Levant predates ‘’Natufian’’, whether you believe they were co-creators or whether they came later. They had to travel from Africa through the Sinai Peninsula and Southern Israel. They can’t just pop into the late Natufian archeological record, you turd.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: (which right away debunks your premise that Africans were latecomers to the Levant)
Where did I say they were latecomers to the Levant? You made the accusation, now I want the exact quote.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Well how about the basic point that Africans were not latecomers into the Natufian population, and were present prior to..?
What is the regional cultural urheimhat and what specific evidence is found at that site, in the earliest Natufian layer that substantiates an African co creation of the Natufians?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: They (Africans) were already present in the Levant with numerous disperals begininng in the Mesolithic?
Where is the bolded part denied by me? Stop yapping and start showing bub.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: My position has evidence for it, yours really doesn't. It's clear the Mushabians were in the Levant before the Natufian period,
Ok, and it is not even disputed that this is true, but how exactly does it help your position that they co created it? LMFAO. What a nut.
Come on, are you slow? This disproves your notion that Africans were latecomers.
How does it disprove that the remains with African affinity analysed by Brace, Angel etc were latecomers into Natufian culture?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: This also gives precedence archaeologically to the evidence shows that the Natufians arose out of the combination of Mushabian and Kebaran cultures.
What evidence specifically? No conclusions by Bar Yosef, I want what they’re basing their claims on. Otherwise what you’re saying is just unsubstantiated hot air, and indicative that you believe something without knowing why Bar Yosef finds this to be the case.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: As to why you keep asking for anthropological skeletal data when its already noted firstly that archaeologically and linguistically the Mushabians were Africans, is beyond me.
LOL. This is news for me. How can one prove that a given culture was linguistically African?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: You must be this invisible opponent? Learn how to correctly spell in the English language, and please don't say it was a typo.
Nope, I don’t have to lie and worm myself out of mistakes like you feel compelled to do. Your expectation of what I will do is a projection that is reflective of your own immoral personality.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Anyway, here's the point, which would fall right back on the fact that you believe Africans were not present in the Levant prior to the rise of the Natfuian culture.
Where did I say that they were not present at that time in the Levant?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: on top of the fact they have also been noted to be direct contributors to the establishment of Natufian culture, literally destroys whatever you've been thinking, reading, or lack thereof.
How? With what material evidence and/or skeletal remains? What contributions were made by Mushabeans between Mesolithic 1 and Mesolithic 2?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Actually you're wrong, basically because a specific culture, not just simply findings has been noted to be African by Yosef and others, along with matching skeletal data, as noted;
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 et al. 2005) and from archeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987).---Ricaut
Exactly, and what time frame are associated with these skeletal remains according to the quoted authors themselves (Brace, Angel et al)?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: The archaeoligical data, clearly Afican per Yosef, the Linguistic data speaks African per linguist Ehert, both have noted this culture of Mushabians in the Levant prior to the rise of Natufians
How does Ehrets linguistical data exclude the scenario that the African migrants started practicing Natufian culture @ a later phase?
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: There was a specific identifiable culture called Mushabians in the Levant prior to the Natufian according to Yosef.
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: This is why I know you're unread, simply because all of the sources you have just learned about are what have been used to establish this Mushabian/Kebaran connection, ultimately giving rise to the Natufians.
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 et al. 2005) and from archeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987)..[...]..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).
Is that the best you can do? ‘’These sources are what have been used to blablabla’’? Since when does a distant recapitulator of studies have the last word over the people who are actually quoted, who were present and involved? And how does it make me unread when the author of your quote obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about? By bolding the bogus parts that argue for Natufian homogeneity, you’re co-signing something that you have professed to be against earlier when you said that they were heterogeneous. You are nothing but a liar, totally incapable of being consistent or admitting defeat. You know damn well what Angel and Brace said about the Natufian remains, and that the author above totally misrepresents their work. By resorting to childish acts like this, you show how truly desperate you are.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Yea well in actuality contrary to what you believe that quote says nothing at all specifically about Kebarans specifically continuing into Natufians at all, but simply that the Mesolithic 1 continues into Mesolithic 2. Try again?
The Mesolithic of the Levant
Chapter 2: (Pages 34-36)
Pre-History and Archaeology Glossary
Excerpts and Definitions and Addendums:
The Mesolithic of the Levant was a distinct cultural stage which came between the Aurignacian and the Neolithic. Its most diagnostic archaeological feature was a chipped stone industry characterised by microlithic tools. This microlithic component has been found on Mesolithic stations all over the Levant but on no Aurignacian or Neolithic site. It is thus the most distinctive trait by which to define the Mesolithic stage.
(Again, arguing for continuation)
Mesolithic sites were first discovered in Palestine and the cultural sequence has since been established more securely there than anywhere else. The earliest group of these sites determined on the evidence of stratigraphy and comparative typology was called Kebaran after the site where this phase was first defined in excavation by Turville-Petre (See Page 271 in *1 Below). The second phase was called Natufian since its type-site - Shukbah - was situated in the Wadi Natuf on the western edge of the Judean hills (See Page 1 in *2 Below). The information obtained from these excavations was considerably augmented in later years in further work by (1) Garrod herself at the Mugharet Wad (See Page 9ff in *3 Below) - (2) by Neuville at several sites in the Judean desert - (3) Stekelis and his collaborators at En Gev (See Page 106 in *3.5 Below) and (4) Perrot at Ain Mallaha. Much other information about Mesolithic sites in Palestine has also been found in recent surveys and excavations.
I must now explain why I have called this stage Mesolithic since this term is not widely used at present in Near Eastern archaeology. The Kebaran and Natufian were described as Mesolithic from their discovery until sometime after the Second World War (See Page 276 in *1 and Page 211 in *4 Below). Objections to this term have recently been raised by a number of archaeologists. Braidwood for example has said that there was no Mesolithic in western Asia in the sense that the term is used in northern Europe (See Page 4 and 80 in *5 Below). Perrot and Bar-Yosef (See Page 1 in *3.5 Below) have also rejected the term; they prefer to call this stage Epi-Palaeolithic to emphasise that the microlithic industries developed from the Aurignacian. At a conference in London in 1969 a number of archaeologists accepted this reasoning and agreed to use this name in future.
I believe that the exclusive use of Epi-Palaeolithic has a number of disadvantages. While I would agree that there was continuity from the Aurignacian to the Kebaran - this term implies that there was an absolute break between the Natufian representing the end of the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic. It is clear now however that human occupation of the Levant continued straight through from the Natufian to the earlier Neolithic. Epi-Palaeolithic also implies that the Kebaran and Natufian had more in common in their artifacts and way of life with the immediately preceding Aurignacian than with the Neolithic. It will be seen from what follows that I would strongly challenge this assumption. This was an important intermediate stage in the human settlement of the Levant distinct from both the Palaeolithic before and the Neolithic after.
Furthermore the Mesolithic coincided with the final cold phase of the Pleistocene and its immediate aftermath so that the environmental setting was different from the preceding and succeeding stages; the contrast between the Kebaran and Aurignacian landscapes being particularly marked. This stage needs to be described by a term that suitably expresses its distinctive qualities. I prefer to return to earlier usage and to use Mesolithic to describe these phases: the Kebaran and Natufian in Palestine and contemporary sites elsewhere in the Levant.
The Mesolithic has been more thoroughly investigated in Palestine than in any other region of the Levant. A few Mesolithic sites had long been known in Lebanon and Syria but their number has grown markedly in recent years. Several of these sites have now been excavated so that the sequence in these regions has also been determined at least in outline. For many years the Nebekian and Falitian levels excavated by Rust at Yabrud III were thought to be the most northerly Kebaran-like occurence but related material has now been found at Douara Cave near Palmyra (See Page 4 in *6 Below) and possibly at Nahr Homr east of Aleppo besides the Euphrates. The evolution of this phase in Lebanon has become much clearer following the recent work at Ksar Akil and Jiita II.
Sites with material related to the Natufian have also been known over a wide area for some time. Helwan near Cairo and Yabrud III were investigated long ago but recently several more sites have been discovered and excavated in Lebanon and Syria. No less than four; Tell Abu Hureyra (See Page 56 in *7 Below) - Mureybat - Dibsi Faraj East (See *7.5 Below) and Nahr Homr have now been examined in the Euphrates Valley in the programme of archaeological exploration which has taken place during the construction of the new Euphrates dam. Work by Hours and his collaborators at Jiita II and by Schroeder at Saaideh (See Page 200 in *8 Below) and Nacharini has begun to clarify the development of this stage in Lebanon.
Now that sites with material resembling at least in part the assemblages of artifacts from Kebaran and Natufian sites in Palestine have been found over such a wide area of the Levant and even further afield the traditional terms used to describe them are no longer adequate. The descriptions Kebaran and Natufian have been used to describe every site far beyond the confines of Palestine with material which bears only the most general resemblance to that on the type-sites. They have by such usage become so strained that they have lost some of their original meaning and precision. I propose in this thesis to use the terms Kebaran and Natufian only for sites in Palestine which may be properly described under these headings. Sites found elsewhere in the Levant which have similarities with these I shall classify as Mesolithic 1 if they may be compared with the Kebaran snd Mesolithic 2 if they have some of the characteristic traits of the Natufian. Both Mesolithic 1 and Mesolithic 2 will also subsume the Kebaran and Natufian in Palestine itself ... A.M.T. Moore (Oxford University)
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with Kalonji. 'Natufian' is the name of a culture not a physical population, 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. That the majority of other cultures had "caucasoid" traits only suggests the point made by Christopher Ehret that the Natufians may represent a small group of Africans who emigrate into an area of predominantly non-African peoples.
The question are: To what samples did Holliday declare to have cold-adapted traits? Which Natufian samples do exhibit tropically adapted traits? And last, are there any skeletons that show intermediate traits like with what can be seen in remains of northern India??
The majority of other populations were neolithic groups of the same "Mediterranean" types occupying North and East Africa. If someone called them caucasoid it must have been Carleton Coon or not very well-versed person quoting someone of his ilk on Mathilda's searchforum.
There were few if any "Caucasoids" in the sense of modern Europeans in the region of Southwest Asia at that time as Brace and Hinahara have pointed out more than once. Although the ancestors of modern Europeans were in a few places like Germany and were a minority living among a Europe populated by the direct ancestors of he Afro-Mediterranean i.e. "hamites".
That is why anthropologists like William Ripley said - "The discoveries of abundant prehistoric remains all over Europe particularly France. ...in every detail they resembled rather the dolicocephalic Negroes of Africa." William Z. Ripley Races of Europe.
And that is why G. Elliot Smith, who found the burial traits of early megalithic builders to be quite similar to those of modern north East Africans invented the term 'brown race', and wrote - “a description of the bones of an Early Briton of that remote epoch might apply in all essential details to an inhabitant of Somaliland… The people were longheaded of small stature, skull is long, narrow and coffin shaped, brow ridges poorly developed, forehead is narrow, vertical and often slightly bulging…”
Modern anthropologsts are just replicating what early anthropologists stated. Some type most represented by East Africans was occupying Europe in appreciable numbers during the mesolithic and neolithic periods. At some point another African type came into the picture directly related to people of Benin and Dahomey. This happened after 13000 B.C. but before 8,000 B.C.
The enigma or question becomes where did this population of West African affiliation come from since the populations of North Africa at that time were basically already like the Mechtoid/ Jebel Sahaba people, who clearly related to later black neolithic peoples of the Mediterranean and similar peoples in the Sahara/East Africa and a link to early Cro-Magnon's in Eurasia.
The Shukbah were small "gracile Negroid Mediterraneans" like modern certain black inhabitants of the Hijaz and coastal Arabia.
The Kebarans are thought to have been similar to the Mechtoid's.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: The Natufians were thought to have been composed of two separate populations both evidently African affiliated. The Kebaran (originally epi-Gravettian people)which has always been said to have been related to Upper Paleolithic Northern Africans -like Mechta Afalou of Egypt and Maghereb or Jebel Sahaba of Nubia, etc and the Mushabians who came in from Africa later and were the gracile type described by Garrod at Shukbah as "Negroid" with attenuated limbs.
The resulting "Natufians" have been described as homogeneous by Francois Ricaut. Brace refers to them as robust.
Apparently both populations coming to make up the Natufian one were African looking people but the question is which one was originally of Central and West African affiliation as opposed to east African affiliation.
Another possibility is that the latter as well as later Levant and Ubaid Mesopotamians (previous to the Chalcolithic when lateral-headed brachycephals enter in small numbers) in fact were derived from the Natufians themselves.
It might explain what is to account for the great prognathism and rather platyyrhine noses of many of the later Ubaid people of Mesopotamia (Eridu) Arabia etc.
There is something missing or enigmatic in the descriptions of Natufians that needs to be delineated more clearly.
Although I am in disagreement about your assertion that the African nature of certain Natufians remains was derived from west and/or central Africans, I would definitely appreciate a direct quote where Garrod said:
and were the gracile type described by Garrod at Shukbah as "Negroid" with attenuated limbs.
And where Brace said:
Brace refers to them as robust.
^To Dana
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: The Natufians were thought to have been composed of two separate populations both evidently African affiliated. The Kebaran (originally epi-Gravettian people)which has always been said to have been related to Upper Paleolithic Northern Africans -like Mechta Afalou of Egypt and Maghereb or Jebel Sahaba of Nubia, etc and the Mushabians who came in from Africa later and were the gracile type described by Garrod at Shukbah as "Negroid" with attenuated limbs.
The resulting "Natufians" have been described as homogeneous by Francois Ricaut. Brace refers to them as robust.
Apparently both populations coming to make up the Natufian one were African looking people but the question is which one was originally of Central and West African affiliation as opposed to east African affiliation.
Another possibility is that the latter as well as later Levant and Ubaid Mesopotamians (previous to the Chalcolithic when lateral-headed brachycephals enter in small numbers) in fact were derived from the Natufians themselves.
It might explain what is to account for the great prognathism and rather platyyrhine noses of many of the later Ubaid people of Mesopotamia (Eridu) Arabia etc.
There is something missing or enigmatic in the descriptions of Natufians that needs to be delineated more clearly.
Although I am in disagreement about your assertion that the African nature of certain Natufians remains was derived from west and/or central Africans, I would definitely appreciate a direct quote where Garrod said:
and were the gracile type described by Garrod at Shukbah as "Negroid" with attenuated limbs.
And where Brace said:
Brace refers to them as robust.
^To Dana
I think the first quote is in Diop's, African Origins of Civilization, and possibly in the footnotes. Unfortunately I no longer have that book so perhaps someone else can post it.
Coon also says somewhere, "the wide, low vaulted nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast to the face."
Brace describes his Natufian sample as robust here - "In dendrograms such as Fig. 1, the little Natufian sample clusters with the Mesolithic of France, the North African Epipalaeolithic, and the European Upper Palaeolithic, but the lengths of each of these twigs show that the relationships are comparatively remote. These are all Late Pleistocene or very early post-Pleistocene groups, and they are also noticeably more robust than more recent human groups."
Also, "In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found."
Found of course in, The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, 2005.
Lastly, I don't know what to make of your "disagreement" since I never would have asserted something about Natufians "being African due to their having derived from west and/or Central Africans."
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys check-out Charlie Bass's new post on the new new study by Tishkoff and Laura Scheinfeldt Neolithic in Northern Africa Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35). The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=565 Much more to read click here^
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The central point here is that we cannot and will know enough about these people to make valid historical judgements. This period is PRE HISTORICAL and is so because of the absence of all but the most minimal data. To try to connect these people up with historical Greece and some of the morons on this board try to do is nothing short of insane.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The central point here is that we cannot and will know enough about these people to make valid historical judgements. This period is PRE HISTORICAL and is so because of the absence of all but the most minimal data. To try to connect these people up with historical Greece and some of the morons on this board try to do is nothing short of insane.
Did you even bother to read the study?? HELL NO!! Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes I did read all of the information you guys have posted over time. Again, there is not enough information avilable to reach any histoical conclusion about who these people were.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bones can not tell you what language a skeleton spoke that researchers may find during archaeological excavations.
For example, neither the Ubaidian or Sumerian language is related to any Afro-Asiatic language.The Akkadian is not document in the area until the 2nd millenium BC. This offers little support for Afro-Asiatic speakers in the area.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Guys check-out Charlie Bass's new post on the new new study by Tishkoff and Laura Scheinfeldt Neolithic in Northern Africa Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35). The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=565 Much more to read click here^
This is part of proto-Nostratic theory that said the Afro-Asiatic dialects spread out from the Levant. This kind of conflicts with the view that the proto-Cushitic dialects began in Ethiopia, unless of course the people of the Levant originated from Ethiopia or vice versa. Nostratic theory is also why some linguists believe the erarly Ubaid people spoke early semitic dialects.
The Kebaran people I believe are the robust people similar to early Mechta Afalou. There "geometric Kebaran" culture is also considered part of epi-Gravettian.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: yes I did read all of the information you guys have posted over time.
Stop lying, you know your cognitive skills cant take you past a sentence. A whole paragraph and you burn out for weeks.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: This is part of proto-Nostratic theory that said the Afro-Asiatic dialects spread out from the Levant. This kind of conflicts with the view that the proto-Cushitic dialects began in Ethiopia, unless of course the people of the Levant originated from Ethiopia or vice versa. Nostratic theory is also why some linguists believe the erarly Ubaid people spoke early semitic dialects.
The Kebaran people I believe are the robust people similar to early Mechta Afalou. There "geometric Kebaran" culture is also considered part of epi-Gravettian.
I have already pointed out that the Natufians were Anu people who probably came from Ethiopia.
There is practically no support for the Nostratic theory because it can't be tested by science. It can't be tested because there are no Natufian or Kebaran text to compare
This does not conflict with the theory that the Cushitic speakers originated in Ethiopia, because many culture terms used in the Puntite (Semitic) languages are of Cushitic origin.
If the Kebaran people were epi-Gravettian, they would have represented Bushman/or Khoisan. As a result, their language was more than likely a click language the language spoken by this population today.
The proto-Nostratic theory is just what it is a theory. This theory can not explain a linguistic region 10,000 or more years ago, because we have no evidence to support such a claim for Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Levant before the Akkadians, who follow the Sumerians, who follow the Ubadians.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter who the Natufian were as a whole. Were you related to the Natufian chiefs and craftsmen or were you related to one of the less ambitious Natufians who picked his ass all day and passed gas?
Posts: 42925 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is part of proto-Nostratic theory that said the Afro-Asiatic dialects spread out from the Levant. This kind of conflicts with the view that the proto-Cushitic dialects began in Ethiopia, unless of course the people of the Levant originated from Ethiopia or vice versa. Nostratic theory is also why some linguists believe the erarly Ubaid people spoke early semitic dialects. The Kebaran people I believe are the robust people similar to early Mechta Afalou. There "geometric Kebaran" culture is also considered part of epi-Gravettian.
I think that's were the language radiated from first from Ethiopia and then to the Levant out wards
Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia. Intriguingly, the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushitic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushitic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushitic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages (37) http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=565Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Dana Marniche
quote:This is part of proto-Nostratic theory that said the Afro-Asiatic dialects spread out from the Levant. This kind of conflicts with the view that the proto-Cushitic dialects began in Ethiopia, unless of course the people of the Levant originated from Ethiopia or vice versa. Nostratic theory is also why some linguists believe the erarly Ubaid people spoke early semitic dialects. The Kebaran people I believe are the robust people similar to early Mechta Afalou. There "geometric Kebaran" culture is also considered part of epi-Gravettian.
I think that's were the language radiated from first from Ethiopia and then to the Levant out wards
Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia. Intriguingly, the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushitic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushitic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushitic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages (37) http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=565
The Oldest language spoken in the Levant was Sumerian. If Afro-Asiatic speakers were already in the area when the Sumerians arrived--please outline the Cushitic and Chadic elements in Sumerian in support of your theory
Outline the linguistic data that dates an Afro-Asiatic language in North Africa 10kya.
Also, there is nothing in Tishkoff and Laura Scheinfeldt supporting a 10kya origin for Afro-Asiatic. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Levant and Sumerian Locations Since the Levant is the doorway leading outside of Africa actually it is technically Africa if one goes by the tectonic plates. The presence of the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushitic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushitic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushitic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages.
It is the Levant proper that most likely receive migrants from Africa carrying their technique to the outside world. Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35). The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36).
The term 'Sumerian' applies to speakers of the Sumerian language. The Sumerian language is generally regarded as a language isolate in linguistics because it belongs to no known language family; Akkadian belongs to the Afro-Asiatic languages.
The Sumerian language of ancient Sumer was spoken in Southern Mesopotamia from at least the 4th millennium BC. Sumerian was replaced by Akkadian as a spoken language around 2000 BC, but continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial and scientific language in Mesopotamia until about 1 AD. Then, it was forgotten until the 19th century. Sumerian is distinguished from other languages of the area such as Hebrew, Akkadian, which also comprises Babylonian and Assyrian, and Aramaic, which are Semitic languages, and Elamite, which may be an Elamo-Dravidian language.
The chronology of the Sumerian language may be divided into several periods according to linguistic and historical considerations:
Archaic Sumerian - 3100 2600 BCE Classical Sumerian - 2600 2300 BCENeo-Sumerian - 2300 2000 BCE Post-Sumerian - 2000 100 BCE http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerlanguage.html The above is the majority opinion of linguist.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brada, Interesting stuff but of little value in looking at the historical era. There people live too long ago to draw any meaningful conclusions. Even the experts in that bfield qualify their theories.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sumerian is genetically related to Dravidian and Mande languages.
Sumerians originated in Africa, that's why their kings were called the "Kings of Kush". No Afro-Asiatic people belonged to the Kushite nation.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: The Levant and Sumerian Locations Since the Levant is the doorway leading outside of Africa actually it is technically Africa if one goes by the tectonic plates. The presence of the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushitic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushitic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushitic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages.
It is the Levant proper that most likely receive migrants from Africa carrying their technique to the outside world. Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35). The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36).
The term 'Sumerian' applies to speakers of the Sumerian language. The Sumerian language is generally regarded as a language isolate in linguistics because it belongs to no known language family; Akkadian belongs to the Afro-Asiatic languages.
The Sumerian language of ancient Sumer was spoken in Southern Mesopotamia from at least the 4th millennium BC. Sumerian was replaced by Akkadian as a spoken language around 2000 BC, but continued to be used as a sacred, ceremonial and scientific language in Mesopotamia until about 1 AD. Then, it was forgotten until the 19th century. Sumerian is distinguished from other languages of the area such as Hebrew, Akkadian, which also comprises Babylonian and Assyrian, and Aramaic, which are Semitic languages, and Elamite, which may be an Elamo-Dravidian language.
The chronology of the Sumerian language may be divided into several periods according to linguistic and historical considerations:
Archaic Sumerian - 3100 2600 BCE Classical Sumerian - 2600 2300 BCENeo-Sumerian - 2300 2000 BCE Post-Sumerian - 2000 100 BCE http://www.crystalinks.com/sumerlanguage.html The above is the majority opinion of linguist.
You Gained my Respect on the religious section standing your Ground to a few of the more Notorious Muslims on these forums.
BUT
You have to take knowledge from what is posted and try to understand. You should not point blank claim people are not Black or White without Proof. Your learning to respect others, don't give that up.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, why the fock did you have to be the one to reply to the attention seeker? Jesus you cant resist trying to "reason" with trolls can you? He is baiting you to go off topic, cant you see that?
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
He never has a point King but the point is the sumerians of the historical era were not black people from africa, that borders on crazy talk.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic