posted
what does Middle Stone Age South Africa have to do with Natufians ?
Also get up to date, your citation source back to older articles' somewhat ambiguous statements
Your thesis is a) Natufians were Africans and b) they brought agriculture to Europe.
Find me a recent article that clearly states that they are Africans not just have some skull features similar to Africans and b) that they brought agriculture to Europe
so far you have fuzzy statements: " to some degree" "indirectly with" etc
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what does Middle Stone Age South Africa have to do with Natufians ?
Also get up to date, your citation source back to older articles' somewhat ambiguous statements
Your thesis is a) Natufians were Africans and b) they brought agriculture to Europe.
Find me a recent article that clearly states that they are Africans not just have some skull features similar to Africans and b) that they brought agriculture to Europe
so far you have fuzzy statements: " to some degree" "indirectly with" etc
quote:Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
quote:Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.
--Ehret (2002) The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia
quote:The Natufians existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant 15,000 to 11,500 years ago. Dr. Grosman suggests this grave could point to ideological shifts that took place due to the transition to agriculture in the region at that time.
posted
Personally I prefer authentic African history than fake history to boost our ego.
While Natufians were not all blacks, it seems there were some African biological and cultural influences/admixtures among those people.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you read or understand what you post ??? Geeze.!!!! Sometimes I feel like leaving you to the wolves(Swenet, Beyoku and the FB crew). But I hate to see the feeding frenzy.
How the fughk do you know Natufians were black?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: Do you read or understand what you post ??? Geeze.!!!! Sometimes I feel like leaving you to the wolves(Swenet, Beyoku and the FB crew). But I hate to see the feeding frenzy.
How the fughk do you know Natufians were black?
Thank you for the comedic moment. We can always count on you for a good laugh.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
But no disrespect but it is irritating when people comment and post BS without any proof or cited sources. This sites becomes no different than those looney forums found all over the web. So I ask again. How do YOU know Natufians were black?
I know Neanderthal was black skinned because his genome has been analyzed and pigmentation markers published. So, do YOU know something I or we don’t?
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. Let me re-phrase it the question. How do you know whether Natufians were black or not? That s why the correct term to use should be based upon Geography. Natufians cluster with AFRICANS.
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: .
While Natufians were not all blacks, .
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Amazing how Natufians went from 'negroid cannibals' to non-black incipient pre-agriculturalists over the last 80 years.
But what about the Natufians?
Who were their ethnic precedents? Where did they come from? What were their cultures/lifestyles from start to finish? When did they arise and when was their end? How widespread were they in Levant/Iraq? Why are they important to African Studies/Egyptology?
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Really Ish, my questions were already primarily answered in a post of yours on the previous page even Queen Troller tried to obfuscate as if you didn't quote several primarily relevant sources by harping on your one reference to MSA S. Afr.
Yeah, atta girl, way to go!! that's how she's cheered on now. Meanwhile we get the Kid and the Doty both of whom are more concerned with bragging name-calling and egos than assisting folk in sorting out African Studies and Egyptology including their informing disciplines.
Carry on TP, you are a mightier man than me (who's just about worn out now).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: How long ago were the ancestors of the Natifians living in Africa?
You have to look at the timing of the assemblage.
quote: Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.
--Bar-Yosef O., Pleistocene connections between Africa and South West Asia: an archaeological perspective. The African Archaeological Review; Chapter 5, pg 29-38; Kislev ME, Hartmann A, Bar-Yosef O, Early domesticated fig in the Jordan Valley. Nature 312:1372–1374.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: How long ago were the ancestors of the Natifians living in Africa?
You have to look at the timing of the assemblage.
If look at the timing of the assemblage how long ago were the ancestors of the Natufians living in Africa?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Building on and refining stone tool typologies from North Africa,21,22 the founda- tion for EP research in the Levant was provided by O. Bar-Yosef23 in his seminal work identifying and defining EP cultures of the southern Levant based on these tools and other site features.
[...]
Early models of culture change associ- ated with pre-agricultural societies of the Levant focused on the sudden, late origin of settled farming villages triggered by climate change. Accompanying this new economic and living situation was durable stone-built architecture; intensified plant and animal use; a flourishing of art and decoration; new mortuary traditions, including marked graves and cemeteries; elaborate ritual and symbolic behavior— a new way of life. This new life style arguably had a slow start, but really took off during the Epipaleolithic period (EP), spanning more than 10,000 years of Levan- tine prehistory from c. 23,000-11,500 cal BP. The last EP phase, immediately pre- ceding the Neolithic, is by far the best-studied in terms of its cultural and economic contributions to questions on the origins of agriculture.
[...]
Figure 2 presents globally and locally recog- nized climatic events from 23,000 to 11,500 cal BP and the approximate dates for major EP phases.
[...]
In 2000, McBrearty and Brooks provided compelling evidence that the origin of modern human behav- ior was not an Upper Palaeolithic revolution, as it has often been inter- preted, but that the components of modern human behavior developed over tens or even hundreds of thou- sands of years of prehistory within Africa.14 In the Near East, Gordon Childe coined the term ‘‘Neolithic revolution’’ to refer to the develop- ment of human control over the reproduction and evolution of plants and animals,111 which arguably was the single most significant social, cul- tural, and biological transition since the origin of our species.
--LISA A. MAHER, TOBIAS RICHTER, AND JAY T. STOCK
Evolutionary Anthropology 21:69–81 (2012)
The Pre-Natufian Epipaleolithic: Long-Term Behavioral Trends in the Levant
quote: The Neolithic transition in Europe was a complex mosaic spatio-temporal process, involving both demic diffusion from the Near East and the cultural adoption of farming practices by indigenous hunter-gatherers. Previous analyses of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Early Neolithic farmers suggest that cranial shape variation preserves the population history signature of the Neolithic transition. However, the extent to which these same demographic processes are discernible in the postcranium is poorly understood. Here, for the first time, crania and postcranial elements from the same 11 prehistoric populations are analysed together in an internally consistent theoretical and methodological framework. Results show that while cranial shape reflects the population history differences between Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages, relative limb dimensions exhibit significant congruence with environmental variables such as latitude and temperature, even after controlling for geography and time. Also, overall limb size is found to be consistently larger in hunter-gatherers than farmers, suggesting a reduction in size related to factors other than thermoregulatory adaptation. Therefore, our results suggest that relative limb dimensions are not tracking the same demographic population history as the cranium, and point to the strong influence of climatic, dietary and behavioural factors in determining limb morphology, irrespective of underlying neutral demographic processes.
--von Cramon-Taubadel N1, Stock JT, Pinhasi R.
Skull and limb morphology differentially track population history and environmental factors in the transition to agriculture in Europe.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: in other words you have no idea
In other words, you have to follow the distribution.
Do you understand English?
^^^ this insult is "societal norms? "
Of course a-hole, English is your second language, that is apparent and why you rely on charts so much, copping other people's words endlessly Instead of saying you don't know, you say "you have to follow"
In other words you don't have an answer.
You lose debates endlessly. Instead of giving and answer or saying you don;t know you come up with bullshyt like "follow the crumbs"
This kind of remarks you use when you don't have the balls to admit you are unsure
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Natufians were still in Africa 14kya. 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.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: .... 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.
Clyde I disagree with some of what you said but you were not playing the games that TP does, so thank you for answering.
What is the date range and location or the first type of people that resembled modern Europeans? Caucus mountains? And who were their ancestors?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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.
.
The problem is the same Trenton Holliday >>
quote:Originally posted by truthcentric,:
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample
Trenton Holliday 2013
: The El Wad site as shown above is a Natufian site located in Mount Carmel Israel, Natufian limb ratios cluster with Europeans although their skulls have some African facial traits.
I never said they were European just that they were cold adapted and have limb ratios that cluster with Europeans. Similar comparisions could be made with East Asians in similar climates
The Natufian culture was an Epipaleolithic culture that existed from 14,000 to 10,200 BP (8185 B.C.) in the Levant.
Apparently there is also significant variation in individuals of the Natufian
Also in the chart is the Afalou. That is an Iberomaurusian site. Their limb ratios are more cold adapated than Europeans. They cluster with Alaskans. This suggest to me that they were subjected to ice age conditions
These kind of adapations rather than skin color is how modern anthropolgists define non-Africans
Otherwise there is no such thing as a non-African, Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood therfore would be African and woud be qualified to play Egyptian Pharoahs
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: in other words you have no idea
In other words, you have to follow the distribution.
Do you understand English?
^^^ this insult is "societal norms? "
Of course a-hole, English is your second language, that is apparent and why you rely on charts so much, copping other people's words endlessly Instead of saying you don't know, you say "you have to follow"
In other words you don't have an answer.
You lose debates endlessly. Instead of giving and answer or saying you don;t know you come up with bullshyt like "follow the crumbs"
This kind of remarks you use when you don't have the balls to admit you are unsure
Instead of typing this rubbish and gibberish crap, look up the data on the assemblages provided.
Thanks for your time.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: .... 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.
Clyde I disagree with some of what you said but you were not playing the games that TP does, so thank you for answering.
What is the date range and location or the first type of people that resembled modern Europeans? Caucus mountains? And who were their ancestors?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
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.
.
The problem is the same Trenton Holliday >>
quote:Originally posted by truthcentric,:
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample
Trenton Holliday 2013
: The El Wad site as shown above is a Natufian site located in Mount Carmel Israel, Natufian limb ratios cluster with Europeans although their skulls have some African facial traits.
I never said they were European just that they were cold adapted and have limb ratios that cluster with Europeans. Similar comparisions could be made with East Asians in similar climates
The Natufian culture was an Epipaleolithic culture that existed from 14,000 to 10,200 BP (8185 B.C.) in the Levant.
Apparently there is also significant variation in individuals of the Natufian
Also in the chart is the Afalou. That is an Iberomaurusian site. Their limb ratios are more cold adapated than Europeans. They cluster with Alaskans. This suggest to me that they were subjected to ice age conditions
These kind of adapations rather than skin color is how modern anthropolgists define non-Africans
Otherwise there is no such thing as a non-African, Tom Hanks and Clint Eastwood therfore would be African and woud be qualified to play Egyptian Pharoahs
The secret to your curiosity would, "climatology"! Thou after posting so much on this topic, it's not really a secret no longer. Rather more of your ignorance, speaking of losing debates all the time. You haven't been able to provide assemblages into Africa by "hypothetical back migration". And now you are scared to look up the references assamblage I have provided.
The injection of your Eurocentric-Egyptian obsession in the last sentence was amusing. Although completely irrelevant.
Ps, I have posted on pre-Natufian history as well. And Clyde posted nothing, I didn't post before. Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
The secret to your curiosity would, "climatology"! Thou after posting so much on this topic, it's not really a secret no longer. Rather more of your ignorance, speaking of losing debates all the time. You haven't been able to provide assemblages into Africa by "hypothetical back migration".
^^ This is really badly written. It is rife with the type of errors a second or third language speaker of English would make. It makes one wonder if your reading comprehension might also have serious deficits. Who are you kidding?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small in 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.
Are we talking about the sam Natufians found in the Israel sites? Were the Natufians Ethiopian ?
And what do you mean they took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe? They were not Ibero-Maurusians yet they took the Ibero-Maurusian tools somehwere else? Does this mean they were interacting with Ibero-Maurusians?
Also, were the Natufians super cool dudes?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
The secret to your curiosity would, "climatology"! Thou after posting so much on this topic, it's not really a secret no longer. Rather more of your ignorance, speaking of losing debates all the time. You haven't been able to provide assemblages into Africa by "hypothetical back migration".
^^ This is really badly written. It is rife with the type of errors a second or third language speaker of English would make. It makes one wonder if your reading comprehension might also have serious deficits. Who are you kidding?
Blah blah blah....when I wrote it, it was late over here. So typos slipped in, on the tablet.
You have made grammatical-errors on multiple occasions. Up to a point, where it became pathetic.
But instead of typing this rubbish, try to reread on the assemblage.
Speaking of reading disabilities...and comprehension skills...
quote:Regular Middle Paleolithic inventories as well as Middle Paleolithic inventories of Aterian type have a long chronology in Morocco going back to MIS 6 and are interstratified in some sites. Their potential for detecting chrono-cultural patterns is low. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, here termed Early Upper Paleolithic—at between 30 to 20 ka—remains a most enigmatic era. Scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental reconsidering of human presence. By integrating environmental data in the reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Paleolithic deposits, possibly indicative of a very low presence of humans in Morocco. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly with the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna, and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas again shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Paleolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipaleolithic occupation. Therefore, the late glacial cultural sequence of Morocco is a good test case for analyzing the interrelationship of culture and climate change.
[...]
The inventories of this late Upper Palaeolithic are rich in microlithic tools, primarily backed bladelets. The same is true for late Pleistocene techno-complexes in the Near East, such as the Kebarian and the Natufian. Therefore, the Iberomaurusian has often been referred to as Epipalaeolithic (Aouraghe, 2006, p. 241; Olszewski et al., 2011). This period is followed by the Neolithic from the middle of the 8th millennium calBP. Until relatively recently, little was known about the EpipalaeolithiceNeolithic transition process, even an occupation gap was assumed (Nehren, 1992).
In the meantime the hunter-gatherer societies of the Early Holocene are much better known. The term “Epipalaeolithic” is restricted now to assemblages from the Early Holocene period as it is common for the whole western Mediterranean (Linstädter, 2008). In this terminology the Epipalaeolithic follows the Iberomaurusian and commences around the PleistoceneeHolocene boundary. During the 8th millennium calBP pottery adopted from Neolithic neighbors appears in hunter-gatherer contexts. The local hunter-gatherers integrated pottery into their material repertoire without changing their lifestyle. For this final stage the term “Epipalaeolithic with pottery” has been introduced (Linstädter et al., in this issue).
--Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Northwest Africa: A Crosscheck of Chronology and Climate Change in Morocco Jörg Linstädter, Prehistoric Archaeology, Cologne University, GERMANY Josef Eiwanger, KAAK, German Archaeological Institute, GERMANY Abdessalam Mikdad, INSAP, MOROCCO Gerd-Christian Weniger, Neanderthal Museum, GERMANY
quote: North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two ‘industries’ are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
--On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, Harold L. Dibble et al. Journal of Human Evolution, 2013 Elsevier.
The more you type, the more you reveal yourself to be a desperate racist! Who are you kidding?
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small in 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.
Are we talking about the sam Natufians found in the Israel sites? Were the Natufians Ethiopian ?
And what do you mean they took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe? They were not Ibero-Maurusians yet they took the Ibero-Maurusian tools somehwere else? Does this mean they were interacting with Ibero-Maurusians?
Also, were the Natufians super cool dudes?
In a brought sense yes,
Αιθιοπία
It may seem remarkeble and as a surprise to you, but Africans did migrate from place-to-place within Africa over of the course of time.
So, not all modern Ethiopians are of the same ethnic grouping.
quote:From various kinds of evidence it can now be argued that agriculture in Ethiopia and the Horn was quite ancient, originating as much as 7,000 or more years ago, and that its development owed nothing to South Arabian inspiration. Moreover, the inventions of grain cultivation in particular, both in Ethiopia and separately in the Near East, seem rooted in a single, still earlier subsistence invention of North-east Africa, the intensive utilization of wild grains, beginning probably by or before 13,000 b.c. The correlation of linguistic evidence with archaeology suggests that this food-collecting innovation may have been the work of early Afroasiatic-speaking communities and may have constituted the particular economic advantage which gave impetus to the first stages of Afroasiatic expansion into Ethiopia and the Horn, the Sahara and North Africa, and parts of the Near East.
The Natufians used the Ibero-Maurusian tool industry (see F. Wendorf, The History of Nubia, Dallas,1968, pp.941-46). These Natufians , according to Christopher Ehret ( "On the antiquity of agriculture in Ethiopia", Jour. of African History 20, [1979], p.161) were small in 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.
Are we talking about the sam Natufians found in the Israel sites? Were the Natufians Ethiopian ?
And what do you mean they took the Ibero-Maurusian tools into Europe? They were not Ibero-Maurusians yet they took the Ibero-Maurusian tools somehwere else? Does this mean they were interacting with Ibero-Maurusians?
Also, were the Natufians super cool dudes?
The Natufians came from East Africa, they would not have been Ethiopians because these Africans did not exist back then. The fact that these people used so-called Ibero-Maurusian tools , a tool kit that originated in Africa--not Iberia--illustrates the African origin of this group.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Natufians came from East Africa, they would not have been Ethiopians because these Africans did not exist back then. The fact that these people used so-called Ibero-Maurusian tools , a tool kit that originated in Africa--not Iberia--illustrates the African origin of this group.
.
How is it they used Ibero-Maurusian tools? Were the Ibero-Maurusians a separate people but the Natufians used their tool kit?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Natufians came from East Africa, they would not have been Ethiopians because these Africans did not exist back then. The fact that these people used so-called Ibero-Maurusian tools , a tool kit that originated in Africa--not Iberia--illustrates the African origin of this group.
.
How is it they used Ibero-Maurusian tools? Were the Ibero-Maurusians a separate people but the Natufians used their tool kit?
That is because the Iberomaurusian came from further South. And they migrated up North over thousands of years. Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Natufians came from East Africa, they would not have been Ethiopians because these Africans did not exist back then. The fact that these people used so-called Ibero-Maurusian tools , a tool kit that originated in Africa--not Iberia--illustrates the African origin of this group.
.
How is it they used Ibero-Maurusian tools? Were the Ibero-Maurusians a separate people but the Natufians used their tool kit?
That is because the Iberomaurusian came from further South.
No they didn't Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Up till now, all you have posted was your BS racist opinion.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Natufians came from East Africa, they would not have been Ethiopians because these Africans did not exist back then. The fact that these people used so-called Ibero-Maurusian tools , a tool kit that originated in Africa--not Iberia--illustrates the African origin of this group.
.
How is it they used Ibero-Maurusian tools? Were the Ibero-Maurusians a separate people but the Natufians used their tool kit?
That is because the Iberomaurusian came from further South.
No they didn't
Yes, they did.
quote: We conducted a comparative analysis of segments between the PP5–6 samples, HP assemblages and more recent archaeological sites through- out Africa. SADBS segment dimensions (Supplementary Table 4) are within the 95% confidence intervals for segments at the MSA and LSA boundary in East Africa, the Tamar Hat Iberomaurusian in North Africa (,20–10kyr), and Holocene assemblages in South and East Africa (Fig. 1). More easily flaked obsidian (owing to its lack of crystalline structure) dominates the East African assemblages, so despite a tougher raw material (silcrete) the SADBS knappers produced comparable microliths. SADBS segments are shorter and thinner than HP segments with no overlap in confidence intervals for width; they are more similar to East African LSA assemblages than the HP (Fig. 1).
--Kyle S. Brown1,2 et al.
An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa
quote: Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa.
[...]
However, considering the general understanding nowadays that human settlement of the rest of the world emerged from eastern northern Africa less than 50,000 years ago, a better explanation of these haplogroups might be that their frequencies reflect the original modern human population of these parts of Africa as much as or more than intrusions from outside the continent. The ways that gene frequencies may increase or decrease based on adaptive selection, gene flow, and/or social processes is under study and would benefit from the results of studies on autosomal and Y-chromosome markers.
Since the end of the extreme Saharan desiccation, lasting from before 25,000 years ago up to about 15,000 years ago, the Sahara has had post- and pre-Holocene cyclical climatic changes (Street and Grove 1976), and corresponding increases and decreases in population are probable. Wetter phases with better habitats perhaps allowed for increased colonization and gene and cultural exchange. Desiccation would have encouraged the emigration and segmentation of popuations, with resultant genetic consequences secondary to drift producing more variation. During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries (Ehret 2002). About 13,000 years ago, large parts of the Sahara were as dry as the desert is now (White and Mattingly 2006). The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, especially from about 8500 to 6000 BC (Fezzan Project 2006). By around 3400 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today, leading to the gradual desertification of the region (Kröpelin 2008). Thus the Sahara, through its cyclical environmental changes, might be seen as a microevolutionary “processor” and/or “pump” of African people that “ejected” groups to the circum-Saharan regions in times of increasing aridity.
Crucial human technological innovations first took place during the MSA in Africa. before the Out of Africa expansion into Eurasia
Recently discovered bone implements from Middle Stone Age (MSA) deposits at Sibudu Cave, South Africa, confirm the existence of a bone tool industry for the Howiesons Poort (HP) technocomplex. Previously, an isolated bone point from Klasies River provided inconclusive evidence. This paper describes three bone tools: two points and the end of a polished spatula-shaped piece, from unequivocal HP layers at Sibudu Cave (with ages greater than ?61 ka). Comparative microscopic and morphometric analysis of the Sibudu specimens together with bone tools from southern African Middle and Later Stone Age (LSA) deposits, an Iron Age occupation, nineteenth century Bushman hunter-gatherer toolkits, and bone tools used experimentally in a variety of tasks, reveals that the Sibudu polished piece has use-wear reminiscent of that on bones experimentally used to work animal hides. A slender point is consistent with a pin or needle-like implement, while a larger point, reminiscent of the single specimen from Peers Cave, parallels large un-poisoned bone arrow points from LSA, Iron Age and historical Bushman sites. Additional support for the Sibudu point having served as an arrow tip comes from backed lithics in the HP compatible with this use, and the recovery of older, larger bone and lithic points from Blombos Cave, interpreted as spear heads. If the bone point from the HP layers at Sibudu Cave is substantiated by future discoveries, this will push back the origin of bow and bone arrow technology by at least 20,000 years, and corroborate arguments in favour of the hypothesis that crucial technological innovations took place during the MSA in Africa.
--Backwella, d'Erricob, and Wadleyd (2008) Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science. Volume 35, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 1566–1580 [/b]
Ancient Stone tone assemblages in North Africa suggest closer links with the African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
quote: North Africa is quickly emerging as one of the more important regions yielding information on the origins of modern Homo sapiens. Associated with significant fossil hominin remains are two stone tool industries, the Aterian and Mousterian, which have been differentiated, respectively, primarily on the basis of the presence and absence of tanged, or stemmed, stone tools. Largely because of historical reasons, these two industries have been attributed to the western Eurasian Middle Paleolithic rather than the African Middle Stone Age. In this paper, drawing on our recent excavation of Contrebandiers Cave and other published data, we show that, aside from the presence or absence of tanged pieces, there are no other distinctions between these two industries in terms of either lithic attributes or chronology. Together, these results demonstrate that these two ‘industries’ are instead variants of the same entity. Moreover, several additional characteristics of these assemblages, such as distinctive stone implements and the manufacture and use of bone tools and possible shell ornaments, suggest a closer affinity to other Late Pleistocene African Middle Stone Age industries rather than to the Middle Paleolithic of western Eurasia.
--On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb, Harold L. Dibble et al. Journal of Human Evolution, 2013 Elsevier.
We conducted a comparative analysis of segments between the PP5–6 samples, HP assemblages and more recent archaeological sites through- out Africa. SADBS segment dimensions (Supplementary Table 4) are within the 95% confidence intervals for segments at the MSA and LSA boundary in East Africa, the Tamar Hat Iberomaurusian in North Africa (,20–10kyr), and Holocene assemblages in South and East Africa (Fig. 1). More easily flaked obsidian (owing to its lack of crystalline structure) dominates the East African assemblages, so despite a tougher raw material (silcrete) the SADBS knappers produced comparable microliths. SADBS segments are shorter and thinner than HP s egments with no overlap in confidence intervals for width; they are more similar to East African LSA assemblages than the HP (Fig. 1).
ABSTRACT There is consensus that the modern human lineage appeared in Africa before 100,000 years ago1, 2. But there is debate as to when cultural and cognitive characteristics typical of modern humans first appeared, and the role that these had in the expansion of modern humans out of Africa3. Scientists rely on symbolically specific proxies, such as artistic expression, to document the origins of complex cognition. Advanced technologies with elaborate chains of production are also proxies, as these often demand high-fidelity transmission and thus language. Some argue that advanced technologies in Africa appear and disappear and thus do not indicate complex cognition exclusive to early modern humans in Africa3, 4. The origins of composite tools and advanced projectile weapons figure prominently in modern human evolution research, and the latter have been argued to have been in the exclusive possession of modern humans5, 6. Here we describe a previously unrecognized advanced stone tool technology from Pinnacle Point Site 5–6 on the south coast of South Africa, originating approximately 71,000 years ago. This technology is dominated by the production of small bladelets (microliths) primarily from heat-treated stone. There is agreement that microlithic technology was used to create composite tool components as part of advanced projectile weapons7, 8.
Microliths were common worldwide by the mid-Holocene epoch, but have a patchy pattern of first appearance that is rarely earlier than 40,000 years ago9, 10, and were thought to appear briefly between 65,000 and 60,000 years ago in South Africa and then disappear. Our research extends this record to ~71,000?years, shows that microlithic technology originated early in South Africa, evolved over a vast time span (~11,000 years), and was typically coupled to complex heat treatment that persisted for nearly 100,000 years. Advanced technologies in Africa were early and enduring; a small sample of excavated sites in Africa is the best explanation for any perceived ‘flickering’ pattern.
--Kyle S. Brown, et al 2012. An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa, Nature 491, 590-593
Some Environmental disasters hindered early African population growth and agriculture
“Dating from more than 15,000 years ago, the evidence from the Nile valley is arguably the earliest comprehensive instance of an organized food-producing system known anywhere on Earth. Given time, this pioneering system might have developed into the stupendous civilization that ruled ancient Egypt for two and a half millennia from about 5,000 years ago. But it could never be. Disaster struck the Nile Valley as its population reached a peak, and by 10,000 years ago occupation density had plunged to a level only slightly above that known for the time of the Wadi Kubbaniya site. The cause of the calamity originated more than 2,000 kilometers to the south, in central Africa at the headwaters of the Nile, where climatic amelioration which followed the last glacial maximum had brought a very marked increase in rainfall.. Around 13,000 years ago, heavy and persistent whih had already flooded even the desiccated Kalahari basin with a number of large lakes moved steadily northward..
The effects downstream were catastrophic. From a sluggish river flowing through shallow braided channels, the Nile was transformed over a period of five hundred years (12,000 to 11,5000 years ago) into what has been called the 'wild' Nile. Extremely high floods were only the beginning of the problem.. With the Nile now flowing through a single deep channel, the extent of the floodplain was severely reduced. The quantities of available plant foods declined.. The levels to which the human population had soared could not be sustained,.. Conservative assessments conclude that regular annual rain began to fall on the region from about 11,000 years ago; additional rain in the valley can hardly be viewed as compensation for the devastating floods its inhabitants had suffered.."
--Africa: A Biography of the Continent, by John Reader, 1999, pp. 155-156
The "revolution" took place in Africa per scholar John Reader, not "Eurasia"
"The Katanda sites are at least 75,000 and possibly as much as 90,000 years old, an age which demands revision of some entrenched Eurocentric views on human cultural development. Hitherto it had been widely believed that although modern humans had evolved in Africa and first migrated from the continent around 100,000 years ago, the manufacture of specialized tools and the development of sophisticated cultural practices such as complex economic strategies, large scale social networks, personal adornment, and an expanded use of symbols in art and daily life arose in Europe, central Asia, Siberia and the Near East between 40,000 and 30,000 years ago. The Katanda evidence contradicts this view, pushing back the invention of specialized tools at least 35,000 years and making Africa the origin not only of anatomically modern humans but also of modern human behaviour."
--John Reader, 1999, Africa: A Biography Of The Continent, p139
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: we suggest that there may have been a relationship, albeit a complex one, between climatic events and cave activity on the part of Iberomaurusian populations.
--A. Bouzouggar, et al. Reevaluating the Age of the Iberomaurusian in Morocco
quote: Since the end of the extreme Saharan desiccation, lasting from before 25,000 years ago up to about 15,000 years ago, the Sahara has had post- and pre-Holocene cyclical climatic changes (Street and Grove 1976), and corresponding increases and decreases in population are probable.
-Frigi et al.
quote:The most enigmatic period in northern Africa is the transitional phase from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. Sites and well- defined assemblages from this period are extremely rare. Middle Palaeolithic industries seem to end around 30 ka. In this paper, the subsequent 10 ka are referred to provisionally as “Early Upper Palaeolithic”; however, the character of human occupation and the accompanying technology during this time remains ambiguous. Elucidation of this phase is a main research objective. This crude and basically still unknown Early Upper Palaeolithic ends with the appearance of the Iberomaurusian.
The “Iberomaurusian” represents the best defined Palaeolithic culture of north-western Africa. In agreement with other authors (e.g. Barton et al., 2007, p. 177) it is interpreted as the second phase of the Upper Palaeolithic. The inventories of this late Upper Palaeolithic are rich in microlithic tools, primarily backed bladelets. The same is true for late Pleistocene techno-complexes in the Near East, such as the Kebarian and the Natufian. Therefore, the Iberomaurusian has often been referred to as Epipalaeolithic (Aouraghe, 2006, p. 241; Olszewski et al., 2011).
--Jörg Linstädter Human occupation of Northwest Africa: A review of Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic sites in Morocco
quote: We conducted a comparative analysis of segments between the PP5–6 samples, HP assemblages and more recent archaeological sites through- out Africa. SADBS segment dimensions (Supplementary Table 4) are within the 95% confidence intervals for segments at the MSA and LSA boundary in East Africa, the Tamar Hat Iberomaurusian in North Africa (,20–10kyr), and Holocene assemblages in South and East Africa (Fig. 1). More easily flaked obsidian (owing to its lack of crystalline structure) dominates the East African assemblages, so despite a tougher raw material (silcrete) the SADBS knappers produced comparable microliths. SADBS segments are shorter and thinner than HP segments with no overlap in confidence intervals for width; they are more similar to East African LSA assemblages than the HP (Fig. 1).
--Kyle S. Brown1,2 et al.
An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: For a period of some ten millennia, the stone-tool industries of North Africa were dominated by microlithic backed bladelets, sometimes almost to the exclusion of any other forms. They were made and used in very small, face-to-face, social contexts and so must have had a role in shaping and negotiating social identity. This can be best seen in the extreme consistency of their forms, both size and shape. Within each of the various cultural contexts, across half a continent, the backed bladelets are so unvarying as to raise the question of whether any determinants other than social negotiation were important. The answer seems to be that, like all things, such nonsocial factors remain possible, but they are very difficult to find.
quote: The Iberomaurusian culture occurred in several North African localities from approximately 20 to 10 ka (OIS 2 to the beginning of the Holocene). These lithic industries are rich in microlithic tools, primarily backed bladelets (e.g., Barton et al., 2005, 2007, 2013; Bouzouggar et al., 2008; Linsta€dter et al., 2012; Sari, 2012, 2014).
--Emilie Campmas et al.
Were Upper Pleistocene human/non-human predator occupations at the Témara caves (El Harhoura 2 and El Mnasra, Morocco) influenced by climate change?
quote: Lithic inventories are characterized by bladelet technology, and as such certainly remain within the tradition of the Iberomaurusian. Tool kits appear to have undergone moderate devel- opments in the course of time. Backed bladelets remain the dominant lithic type, although their ratios decrease, but other types such as notched and denticulated pieces, as well as microliths, increase (Nami, 2007). Detailed descriptions of archaeological assemblages and numerical dates from recently investigated sites with particular focus on the Eastern Rif region are summarized elsewhere (Linstädter, 2008, 2011).
The end of the Epipalaeolithic seems to be a gradual process that commenced with the first appearance of Neolithic groups along the North-African coast at around 7.6 ka. Local hunter-gatherer groups adapted step by step, gradually incorporating Neolithicinnovations, and from the 6th millennium BP onwards are no longer detectable as an independent archaeological phenomenon (Linstädter et al., 2012).
--Jörg Linstädter et al.
Human occupation of Northwest Africa: A review of Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic sites in Morocco
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Like I said Iberomaurusians did not come from further South.
quote: For the most part, it has been the stone artifacts that have been used as the principal criteria for classifying assemblages into one or the other of these sets of terms. But beyond the lithic evidence are the potentially symbolic behaviors in the MSA as suggested by the perforated Nassarius shells, engraved ochre and ostrich eggshells, the unequivocal use of ochre, compound adhesives, bone tools, etc. (e.g., Henshilwood et al., 2001, 2004, 2009; d’Errico et al., 2005, 2009; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico and Henshilwood, 2007; Wadley, 2007; Backwell et al., 2008).
The Atero-Mousterian assemblages include some of these features as well, including Nas-sarius shells, such as those found at Oued Djebbana, Ifri n’Ammar, Rhafas, Taforalt, and Contrebandiers Cave (Vanhaeren et al., 2006; Bouzouggar et al., 2007; d’Errico et al., 2009; Nami and Moser, 2010; Dibble et al., 2012). When the characterization of the Atero-Mousterian is broadened beyond the lithic artifacts to include these other traits, and given that the tanged pieces themselves represent a distinct and innovative technological feature, the overall nature of the Atero-Mousterian fits well into the kinds of variability seen in other MSA industries of East and southern Africa.
--Harold L. Dibble et al.
On the industrial attributions of the Aterian and Mousterian of the Maghreb
quote: Iberomaurusian microlithic technologies like the Oranian are evidenced in the Maghreb by ca. 26 ka (Barton et al., 2007; Bouzouggar et al., 2008) and in the Gebel Gharbi by ca. 20 ka (Garcea, 2010b). The time lapse in the appearance of microlithic technologies is at variance with theories of the Maghrebian Iberomaurusian having its origins in a westward migration of people from the Gebel Akhdar (e.g., Close and Wendorf, 1990; Pereira et al., 2010).
--Katerina Douka
The chronostratigraphy of the Haua Fteah cave (Cyrenaica, northeast Libya)
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Not necessarily in this thread but in other Natufian interest thread(s) it was not noted that a tool kit and a technology to produce tools are not the same.
If Maurusians (nothing Ibero about them, not even to Coon) and Natufians among many others share the same tool making technology their actual tool kits are distinctive.
Also Natufians are Levantine as their type site is in the Levant (Palestine/Israel)
Natufians are neither Egyptians Kushites nor Ethiopians which are all post stone age civs.
Ricaut & Waelken 2008 referenced on ES many times since 2010 remains a valid Natufian roundup in the absence of bar-Yosef's African Levant relation article ($43).
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Consequently, one may hypothesize as the most parsimonious explanation that sub-Saharan biological elements were introduced into the Anatolian populations after the Neolithic spread and have been preserved since this time, at least until the 11th-13th century A.D., in the population living in the Sagalassos territory of southwestern Anatolia. This scenario implies that the affinity between Sagalassos and the two sub-Saharan populations (Gabon and Somalia) is more likely due to the sharing of a common ancestor and that the major changes and increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean beginning in the Bronze Age did not erase some of the sub-Saharan elements carried by Anatolian populations, as shown by genetic data and the morphologivcal features of our southwestern Anatolian sample."
I don't get it they talk about a common ancestor but also say sub-Saharan biological elements were introduced into the Anatolian populations ("EEF") after the Neolithic spread
The next portion of the text (not above) >
quote: "In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millenium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The Natufians were still in Africa 14kya. 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.
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.
.
Natufians were not continental Africans. They arose in the Levant (external Africa if you will) from a merging of an internal African out migrating people and a local Levantine folk. They are not of soley proto-agricultural African ancestry per their morphometrics derived from skulls of various places throughout their epoch.
While Natufians and Maurusians (not a thing Ibero about them until near the colapse of their culture) may share their technique of tool making their tool kits are unique.
The Natufians were long since extinct by the time "... modern civilizations of the Middle East were created ..." Nor were they Nubians, they were Levantines not Sudanese, and derive from local Levant as well as Nile Delta populations.
While a secondary plurality of their skulls assimilate those of tropical peoples their post-cranial (skeleton minus the skull) measurements, though not actually cold adapted, true, veer away from tropical proportions toward cold adaptation.
Perhaps its best to say they were 'temperate adapted'.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: from above text
quote:
Consequently, one may hypothesize as the most parsimonious explanation that sub-Saharan biological elements were introduced into the Anatolian populations after the Neolithic spread and have been preserved since this time, at least until the 11th-13th century A.D., in the population living in the Sagalassos territory of southwestern Anatolia. This scenario implies that the affinity between Sagalassos and the two sub-Saharan populations (Gabon and Somalia) is more likely due to the sharing of a common ancestor and that the major changes and increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean beginning in the Bronze Age did not erase some of the sub-Saharan elements carried by Anatolian populations, as shown by genetic data and the morphologivcal features of our southwestern Anatolian sample."
I don't get it they talk about a common ancestor but also say sub-Saharan biological elements were introduced into the Anatolian populations ("EEF") after the Neolithic spread
The next portion of the text (not above) >
quote: "In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millenium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."
.
Maybe you'll want to script notes while rereading Ricaut&Waelkens so as not to confuse peoples, ages (climatical and human), and locales into one mimshmosh.
If you do I am sure you will "get it".
BTW Ricaut&Waelkens use no such term as EEF (a purely hypothetical statistical 'ghost' construct) that was not invented in 2008/9. That's something you snaked in.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever it is it's unecessrily provocative, unprofessional, I put EEF in quotes but you can delete that one word if you want I expound on the topic in the Steepe thread in AE
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: That is not name calling that's a reference to an act i.e. something you committed not someone you are unless YOU equate the two.
Lioness became speechless, ran out of valuable arguments.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Here's a round up of precursors for Mashubians, themselves precursors of the Natufian and later Anatolia bound farmers starting with the Sebilians.
Nubian Final Stone Age: This stage contains four distinct industries: the Halfan, the Qadan, the Arkinian, and the Shamarkian. All of these industries share a tendency for the retouched tools to be microlithic, suggesting extensive use of composite tools. They also all make frequent use of microblades and bladelets in the manufacture of finished tools, and Nile chert pebbles were used almost exclusively as raw material for these tools. The Nile and its resources, especially fish, become increasingly important, and it is during this stage that the first use of ground grain occurs. There is an overlap in time between the Nubian Final Stone Age and the preceeding Nubian Upper Stone Age. The earliest Nubian Final Stone Age sites (the Halfan) occur in situ in Nile silts and have radiocarbon dates of around 17,000 B.G., while the Nubian Upper Stone Age probably begins before 20,000 B.G., but survives as a technological stage represented by the Sebilian, as late as 9,000 B.G.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Meanwhile we get 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic