The African Archaeological Review, 4 (I986), pp. 41-82
The Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene prehistory of the Horn of Africa
STEVEN A. BRANDT
Abstract The last major synthesis of the Upper Pleistocene and early Holocene prehistory of the Horn was published over thirty years ago. This paper therefore attempts critically to review the current state of knowledge and research pertaining to Middle Stone Age and Later Stone Age hunter/gatherer culture history and adaptation in the region that now encompasses Somalia,Ethiopia and Djibouti. Although the archaeological record still suffers from major gaps in information, chronometric analyses as well as subsistence, settlement and other behavioural data from stratified excavated sites have begun to reveal the Horn's potential for providing important contributions to understanding late Quaterna~" hunter/gatherer cultural development.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
TSD, do you have the complete study?
Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
From the full text:
Prehistoric populations
The early Holocene deposits at Lake Besaka and Buur Heybe have provided the earliest evidence in the Horn of intentional human burial. At the site of FeJx 2 at Lake Besaka the incomplete remains of five human skeletons were found buried in Abadir Phase sediments alongside an irregular pile of stones, with the most complete specimen composed of the upper half of the body only. No evidence of carnivore activity could be observed, while many of the bones were burnt (Clark and Williams 1978). However, no cut marks or any other indication of cannibalism was discovered, while the texture of the bones indicated they were probably surrounded by flesh when buried (Dechant and Crader t982). Of particular interest was a fragment of a human long bone through which a hole approximately 6 mm in diameter had been intentionally drilled as if for suspension (McCown n.d.). Needless to say', 'some unusual burial custom' is suggested (Clark and Williams 1978:37). No evidence of grave goods was found in direct association with the burials, although two bone tubes and a cache of over thirty gastropod shells pierced as if for suspension were found next to the stone pile (ibid.). Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (McCown rod.). Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: TSD, do you have the complete study?
Yes I do. I'm about to upload the entire study to the yahoo group for reference.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Morphological features of the crania indicate Negroid affinities and can best be compared to the Sudanese skeletons of Jebel Sahaba and Wadi Halfa (McCown rod.).
Realizing that this [study] was published some time back, what does the author mean by "Negroid" affinities?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Written in 1986 this report can only fail to attain the goal of its abstract's second sentence. It may useful as guide and pointer for the familiar but tyros not knowing what info's filled in the gap between then and now may be mislead by it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Realizing that this [study] was published some time back, what does the author mean by "Negroid" affinities?
I agree, what does he mean by "negroid"?
Most likely he means 'true negroid' or the broad face type. What about the elongated types discussed in Pliestocene East Africa?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
Realizing that this [study] was published some time back, what does the author mean by "Negroid" affinities?
I agree, what does he mean by "negroid"?
Most likely he means 'true negroid' or the broad face type. What about the elongated types discussed in Pliestocene East Africa?
May well be the case, i.e., traits that were traditionally associated with what Keita terms as the 'forest' Negro.
Posted by yodit (Member # 10198) on :
It is an interesting discussion about Tigrian people. Note that I will be avoiding the word Tigray (geographic area located in Ethiopia), since Tigrian people live in both North of Ethiopia as well as in Eritrea. I am Tigrian and it is true that I don't call myself black or Negroid and not even hybrid like some of you put it. Yes, I do know that I have a strong Semitic (Arab, Jews, etc.) ancestry, but I don't call myself an Arab or a Jew. The Semitic ancestry of Tigrians can be found in any history book you read. Generally speaking it is also true that the Tigrian people are very conservative about marring someone other than their own group but we have been intermarrying with other Ethiopian or Eritrean population whether by will or even by force at times. That is why, the Tigrians come in different colors; dark, fare, and light skin. Regardless, we all call ourselves Tigrians as well as we take strong pride in our ancestry.
Don’t be surprise to hear different Tigrians claiming to be different things because that is the beauty of all.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on :
Nice to hear. But how do modern Tigrian relate to the topic which is about "upper pleistocene and early holocene prehistory people of the horn of africa"?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
We know that Negroid is defined as a race construct that has no scientific merit.
But the question asked was, what do the author's mean?
The short answer is - anything they want, and therefore there is no way to *prove* such claims right or wrong.
Specifically the features they sometimes look for are ->
a round shaped face, as opposed to a long face,
a projecting jaw,
and a broad nose.
Why they are looking for these features is of course because they were stereotypically present in many African people, which is how it became the basis of a fraudulent race typology to begin with.
Many physical anthropologists have rejected these terms because it leads directly and inivitably to nonsense arguments, such as we see on the web all the time.
Nonsense arguments have no resolution, except what is to be gained from rejecting the nonsense.
ps - thanks for the study reference TSD.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: We know that Negroid is defined as a race construct that has no scientific merit.
But the question asked was, what do author's mean.
The short answer is - anything they want, and therefore is no way to *prove* such claims right or wrong.
Specifically the features they sometimes look for are ->
a round shaped face, as opposed to a long face,
a projecting jaw,
and a broad nose.
Why they are looking for these features is of course because they were stereotypically present in many African people, which is how it became the basis of a fraudulent race typology to begin with.
Many physical anthropologists have rejected these terms because it leads directly and inivitably to nonsense arguments, such as we see on the web all the time.
Nonsense arguments have no resolution, except what is to be gained from rejecting the nonsense.
ps - thanks for the study reference TSD.
Well said.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Maybe I just missed it, but I went through the yahoo site, and the study in question is nowhere to be found. Has anyone else located it...or has it even been posted there yet?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: We know that Negroid is defined as a race construct that has no scientific merit.
But the question asked was, what do the author's mean?
The short answer is - anything they want, and therefore there is no way to *prove* such claims right or wrong.
Specifically the features they sometimes look for are ->
a round shaped face, as opposed to a long face,
a projecting jaw,
and a broad nose.
Why they are looking for these features is of course because they were stereotypically present in many African people, which is how it became the basis of a fraudulent race typology to begin with.
Many physical anthropologists have rejected these terms because it leads directly and inivitably to nonsense arguments, such as we see on the web all the time.
Nonsense arguments have no resolution, except what is to be gained from rejecting the nonsense.
ps - thanks for the study reference TSD.
So what if these 'experts' were to find prehistoric remains of the peoples with narrow features?? What then? Would they say these were the remains of Kacazoids?!
What about the source cited here which states that elongated type Africans have been indigenous to the East African region since prehistoric times?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:What about the source cited here which states that elongated type Africans have been indigenous to the East African region since prehistoric times?
The antiquity of narrow facial features in Africa and elsewhere is one of many facts what renders the notion of k-zoid oxymoronic.
The original basis of this term hypothesised that all such people had a specific common origin in the caucasus region of Eurasia - and spread out from there.
We now know this is false.
And yet, neophyte Africanists often seem to have no real answer to the rhetoric of the likes of Hawass.
There is no scientific basis for applying the term k-zoid to - King Tut - for example.
Tut is and African and all of his morphological featues from skin-tone to head and body shape are features native to Africa, found among Africans and in some cases are particular to Africans.
He cannot be removed from Africa and reassigned by rhetoric to Eurasia.
The proper way for Africanists to advance the discourse then, is to discontinue the use of anachronistic terminologies themselves, and dismiss the use of said terminologies by erstatz scholars such as Hawass.
Whenever Africans utilise outdated racial terms themselves - they aid Eurocentrists - and merely slow the considerable progress that has been made with regards to African history.
Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: Nice to hear. But how do modern Tigrian relate to the topic which is about "upper pleistocene and early holocene prehistory people of the horn of africa"?
Here is the area in question:
From the full text:
"The Horn of Africa comprises the modern countries &Somalia, Djibouti and Ethiopia and is an area &impressive physiographic, environmental, climatic and cultural diversity (Fig. 1).
For purposes of this paper, however, five broad regions can be recognized on environmental, geographical, ethnic and socio-economic grounds (Lewis 1955; Simoons 1960; White 1983) :
(l) the hot and humid woodland plains of lowland western Ethiopia, where Eastern Sudanic and other NiIo-Saharan-speaking peoples practise a mixed farming strategy;
(2) the steep-sided valleys, fiat-topped mesas and high mountain peaks of the temperate Afromontane and the bush- and thicket-covered Ethiopian and Somali (Southeastern) Plateaux, where Omotic, Cushitic and Semitic-speaking agriculturalists cultivate a wide range of crops;
(3) the hot, dry, fiat semi-desert grasslands, deciduous bushiand and thickets of Somalia and the Ethiopian and Afar Rift Valleys, where Northern and Eastern Cushitic-speaking pastoral nomads live;
(4) the humid to semi-arid Inter-riverine and LowerJuba regions of southern Somalia, where riverine gallery forest, deciduous bushland and thickets and coastal mosaic vegetation are farmed by Eastern Cushitic and Bantu-speaking peoples; and
(5) the semi-desert grasslands, bushtand and thickets &the hot Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean beaches, dunes and coastal plains, where Cushitic-speaking peoples engage in pastoral nomadism and maritime-based economies."
Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Maybe I just missed it, but I went through the yahoo site, and the study in question is nowhere to be found. Has anyone else located it...or has it even been posted there yet?
for some reason it will not upload, but i will happy to email it out to those who want it.
Posted by Triple Stage Darkness (Member # 9424) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Realizing that this [study] was published some time back, what does the author mean by "Negroid" affinities?
I agree, what does he mean by "negroid"?
Most likely he means 'true negroid' or the broad face type. What about the elongated types discussed in Pliestocene East Africa?
If the reamins resembled Jebel Sahaba people they were very extreme in so called "Negroid" morphology, even more "extreme" than Teita and Dogon, here's a plot from Groves study, look at factor two and see how "Negroid" Jebel Sahaba was:
There were also elongated types there:
"Preliminary morphological analysis of these and the other skeletons (L. A. Schepartz pets. comm.; Brand t and Schepartz in prep.) indicates the presence ofa regionalIy distinct population at this time, aithough affinities with the late Pleistocene/early Holocene Sudanese and Kenya Rift Valley populations are suggested."
You have already saw the previous post on Pleistocene East Africans by Schepartz, so there you have it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
So the over all conclusion is that broad types and elongated types were contemporaneously co-existing in the same region??
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So the over all conclusion is that broad types and elongated types were contemporaneously co-existing in the same region??
Most likely, if the specimens/skeletal remains found over the years, are anything to go by.
quote:TSD: for some reason it will not upload, but i will happy to email it out to those who want it.
