quote:

---

Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:

quote:

---

Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.

---

This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
If it was something significant the other side (Eurocentrics) would have bombarded Egyptsearch with it by now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
King

Maybe someone is interested in researching whether the type of Natufians described here are the same sample/age described by Brace, Arthur Keith etc as ''Negroid''. Note that Arthur Keith referred to ''negroid'' Natufians from around 5000bc. Brace had earlier samples as he was referring to their latest hunters who were transitioning into the neolithic.

I'll deal with it when it has been demonstrated that the short limbed type pertains to samples described by Brace, Keith, Keita and others.

''Natufian'' is a culture, not a single population

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:


Maybe someone is interested in researching whether the type of Natufians described here are the same sample/age described by Brace, Arthur Keith etc as ''Negroid''. Note that Arthur Keith referred to ''negroid'' Natufians from around 5000bc. Brace had earlier samples as he was referring to their latest hunters who were transitioning into the neolithic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.

---

LOL
That doesn't even make sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Natafians who fall in between the Niger Congo speaking sample and Nubians, but who have been admixed to the point have having predominantly Eurasian lineages.

---

Huh?
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures

---

Uh huh
Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?

Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures

---

Uh huh
Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?

Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?

---

you didn't get the sarcasm?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures

---

Uh huh
Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?

Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?

---

you didn't get the sarcasm?

---

Birdbrain
Sarcasm or not
You're still left with the fact south-west Asians, from what is gathered so far, were cold adapted.
You're still left that predynastic lower Egypt wasn't.
You sarcasm only makes a mockery out of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

^That didn't made sense to me.

Can you establish that the cold adapted limbs found by Trenton relate to Brace's sample that fell in between Niger congo speakers and Nubians?

---

Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples , secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?

Something to understand here is that agricultural evidence shows in the middle east around 18kya that they were using wild grains, but they were using the seeds just as they were, while in the northeastern corner of Africa they were grinding grains and it wasn't until these Mushabaeans from Africa migrated into southwest Asia that we see grinding of grain there. Out of this migration from East Africa wherein the grinding of grains were introduced into southwest Asia is where the Natufian culture arose. Which is also most likely when derivatives of the E haplogroup and the Semetic language was introduced from Africa to SW Asia.

So in essence the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together, one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia. Therefore it wouldn't be illogical to believe they are less tropically adapted while still exhibiting cranio-facial characteristics clustering with Niger-Congo samples.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
What in my quote exactly caused your confusion?

---

How about...

Natafians who fall in between the Niger Congo speaking sample and Nubians, but who have been admixed to the point have having predominantly Eurasian lineages.---Kalonji

^^Does this have anything to do with what I posted?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
"buddy"?. Thought you were a HE. Damn! And I thought I was in there.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


picture I took on my Levant vacation
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:


picture I took on my Levant vacation

---

Actually I think I see the peaks of Kilimanjaro in the background.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


the phenotype is unmistakable

sc
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples [Eek!]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
The point here is that the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
naturally, they had to adapt to the freezing cold Levant termperatures

---

Uh huh
Is that why you attempt to use these same ''naturally cold adapted'' limb proportions to revise your AE Mulatta theory?

Was the Levant according to you not closer to Egypt than Nubia? How exactly does this work Birdbrain? How have you patched up this hole in your theory, in order to not have to look at the most logical conclusion?

---

you didn't get the sarcasm?

---

Just call her Birdbrain of the morning, Birdbrain
Just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby
Just call her Birdbrain of the morning, Birdbrain
Then slowly turn away from me


^^^^^^^
Lyin'ass Carcass after Kolangi is done with her BirdBrain spams..

Just call her Birdbrain.com..LMAO
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:


MOM, first you ask:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?

---

Only to come to the conclusion that:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
The point here is that the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
typical MOM flip flop

---

 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
^ he he he

so right! she thought people would forget her flip flopping!
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
Hahahahah ^Jari is pure comedy
I wanted to comment on her projecting myself, but I was just too disgusted by her.

GODDAMN
She duhm
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples [Eek!]

---

I'll assume this wasn't a strawman and that you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask HOW they were related, I asked what the basis was for generalised nature the following statement:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
And whether the inconsistent results of cranial/post cranial meassurements could not have been the result of the use of different samples. And that, had the same samples been used, we might have had different results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
MOM, first you ask:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?

---

Only to come to the conclusion that:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
The point here is that the Natufians arose as result of two different populations coming together one coming from Africa and the other in southwest Asia.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
he he he

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Hahahahah

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
he he he

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

---

anguish of being


Jari


classic
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well Kalonji I made the statement going by the fact the Natufians are Natufians, so when anthropologists remark on the Natufians it is what it is, they're talking about that one specific population. I don't think of another population of Natufians that might be considered. Do you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well, it "could" be anything, if you can find evidence for it, I'll take a look. But my point is that what needs to be understood as mentioned is that Natufians arose as a consequnce of two populations coming together

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Yes Kalonji, that is what I asked, can you establish that when anthropologists discuss the Natufians that there might be other Natufians that they are analyzing or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Wherein my response being yea, of course it can be established, since they're both Natufian samples, that's how Brace's sample relates to Trenton's. Natufians are Natufians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Yes there were two different populations who originally came together to form the Natufian culture, but there was only one Natufian culture, get it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Ex. Three different populations came together and formed the modern Puerto Rican population, but there is only one Puerto Rican population, just as two populations came to form the Natufians but there were only one Natufian population, get it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well Kalonji I made the statement going by the fact the Natufians are Natufians, so when anthropologists remark on the Natufians it is what it is, they're talking about that one specific population. I don't think of another population of Natufians that might be considered. Do you?

---

I take Natufian to refer to a group of people that had a common set of cultural features, and who lived in a designated time frame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I do think there were several/seperate entities involved. Besides the African one that moved in, if we look at the sheer wide spreadedness of Natufian culture, it makes it impossible that we’re dealing with one large west Asian hunter gatherer group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
To get back to the discussion, I think that the Natufian sample that resembled modern Niger-Congo speakers couldn’t possibly have spread all over the Levant. And that, unless corroborated that Trenton was using the same data set, short limbs in ‘’Natufian’’ remains should not be automatically extended over Brace’s, Angels, and Keith’s samples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well, it "could" be anything, if you can find evidence for it, I'll take a look. But my point is that what needs to be understood as mentioned is that Natufians arose as a consequnce of two populations coming together

---

Can you substantiate that?
What I understand, is that Natufian culture predates the migration of African immigrants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972)
^This is exactly why it makes no sense to extend Trentons short limbed Natufians to Brace’s sample, and to any other sample that sported African features for that matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Yes Kalonji, that is what I asked, can you establish that when anthropologists discuss the Natufians that there might be other Natufians that they are analyzing or not?

---

This is nothing new MOM. Note the above Angel quote. Natufian culture reached as far as Mesopotamia and Greece.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Wherein my response being yea, of course it can be established, since they're both Natufian samples, that's how Brace's sample relates to Trenton's. Natufians are Natufians.

---

C’mon MOM, you slipped and made a mistake by generalising, this is normal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Don’t act like you don’t know better than to assume that because one sample must have a certain set of features, the other must show it too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Yes there were two different populations who originally came together to form the Natufian culture, but there was only one Natufian culture, get it?

---

Again, this is your burden to prove, since I have never read that. What I do know is that Africans contributed to the Natufian culture, but that doesn’t mean both their cultures merged to originate it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Ex. Three different populations came together and formed the modern Puerto Rican population, but there is only one Puerto Rican population, just as two populations came to form the Natufians but there were only one Natufian population, get it?

---

Yes, but still inside PR, there are ethnic groups that differ significantly. What goes morphologically for the people of one village/city doesn’t automatically ring true for another. Fat Joe, Kirk Acevedo, Tru life, Zoe Saldana (girl from Avatar), Meagan Good, Jim Jones and JLO clearly differ in features. This is even more the case when you’re dealing with a region the size of the Levant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I agree with Kalonji. 'Natufian' is the name of a culture not a physical population,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The question are: To what samples did Holliday declare to have cold-adapted traits? Which Natufian samples do exhibit tropically adapted traits?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
And last, are there any skeletons that show intermediate traits like with what can be seen in remains of northern India??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.

---

This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits

---

Mary Mary.
 

---

Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:

quote:

---

Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.

---

This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?

---

quote:

---

(3) THE NATUFIANS OF PALESTINE

Compared with the continent of Africa, from the prehistoric standpoint,
Asia is archaeologically little known. So far, excavations have revealed
implements of Mesolithic technique in Kurdistan and in Palestine, 8 but
only from the latter have Mesolithic skeletons been recovered. Here an
Aurignacian culture lasted during the entire Late Pleistocene, and directly
preceded the Mesolithic. Since Miss Garrod feels that this region was one
of the main areas of differentiation of the Aurignacian cultural technique,
it is very unfortunate that not a single Aurignacian skull has been pub-
lished. Therefore, the very important question of the Late Pleistocene re-
lationships of this key area must remain unsettled.

For the following period, however, at least two hundred skeletons have
been exhumed from two different Mesolithic levels and from five or more
sites. So far, only two of these skeletons have been published, one from
each level. Great doubt is current at the moment concerning the exact
nature of the physical types of this people, and we must await detailed
publications in the near future before this matter may be settled. 9

These Palestinians, who have been given the name Natufians, appar-
ently differed in physical type from period to period. One of the two skele- tons which has been published is that of an adult female from the earliest level at a site called Erg el Ahmar. 10

The skull of this woman is large, robust, and thick- walled; it is purely
dolichocephalic, and has an elevated cranial vault in which the height
almost equals the breadth. The forehead, as with females of many races,
is broad, straight, and rounded. The* face, likewise, is broad, and of
medium height; the nasal root, somewhat depressed, is hidden under
browridges massive for a female, while the nasal bones project far forward,
to form an accentuated profile.

The low, broad orbits of this specimen assume the rectangular form
characteristic among most of the Upper Palaeolithic skulls from Europe
and North Africa, while the orbital index is correspondingly low. The

8 Garrod, Miss D. A. E., BASF, No. 6, 1930, pp. 8-43.

9 Mr. T. D. McCown was, at the time of writing, engaged in working over a large col-
lection of these skeletons under the direction of Sir Arthur Keith and intends to publish
it shortly.

10 Vallois, Henri, V., Anth, vol. 46, 1936, pp. 529-543.


62 THE RACES OF EUROPE

nose is high, narrow, and metrically leptorrhine; the nasal spine promi-
nent, and the lower border of the piriform opening strongly crested. The
mandible, of medium robust icity, possesses a prominent chin. The rugged
beauty of this Natufian woman was, however, somewhat diminished by
an abnormality of dental occlusion, for her lower incisors overlap the
upper ones.

Morphologically, this skull is perfectly European and belongs without
question to the general Upper Palaeolithic type. It would also fit metri-
cally into the female range for this group. It would, however, fit equally
well into the North African series of Afalou bou Rummel, except that it is
somewhat narrower nosed than the females of that group as known at
present. 11 In the absence of data on Palestinian Aurignacian crania, one
may suppose that the Aurignacian Upper Palaeolithic Neanderthal-
sapiens hybrid developed in this neighborhood from Skhul-like beginnings,
and that this Erg el Ahmar female is a survival of it.

The skulls from the later Natufian period, while exceedingly numerous,
remain dubiously classified because of several conflicting ideas about them
which have been published. Sir Arthur Keith 12 in a preliminary report on
the remains from Shuqbah and Kebara, states that the later Natufianswere short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. and the females of 152 cm. The tallest male in the group was only 165 cm. in height. The hands and feet of these later Natufians were remarkably
small, and their long bones were in no sense massive.

The skulls which Keith describes are of a peculiarly Mediterranean
type, with a cephalic index ranging from 72 to 78, thus rivalling the sub-
dolichocephalic head form of short statured Mediterraneans living today.
The brain cases are of medium size, and the faces absolutely small. The
lower jaws are also small and weakly developed, with little chin promi-
nence and a prevalence of alveolar prognathism. The wide, low- vaulted
nose, in combination with prognathism, gives a somewhat negroid cast
to the face. The browridges are smooth, and the whole system of muscular-
ity in the male but slightly developed. These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. 13 There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian. These small Mediter- raneans must have brought their microliths from some point farther south or east, impelled by changes of climate.

11 Some of the Mugharet el Wad crania, which belong to the earlier horizon, seem likewise to resemble those of the Upper Pleistocene. This comparison represents, how- ever, a preliminary impression, and is stated only with reservations. Personal com- munication by Mr. T. D. McCown.

** Keith, Sir A., New Discoveries, pp. 202-214; PICP, 1932, pp. 46-47.

13 This impression is also confirmed by the French school.

Boule, Vallois, and Verneau, Les Grottes Palaeolithiques de Bent Seghoual, pp. 212-214.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.

---

This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeingagayloser:

Mary Mary.

---

..had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow. We know the rhyme.
Now I have one for you:
Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jumped hard onto an Asian man's d|ck. He rode so hard, he rode so fast, he did it so until he broke his- ass.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Explorer:

*For what it's worth, data referenced by Hershkovitz et al. 1995 puts the brachial index means of the non-Hayonim Natufian samples at 77% and that of Hayonim Natufian samples in the range of 75-78. Apparently, the non-Hayonim collection of Natufian samples report a mean that is greater than that observed for either recent Europeans or Neanderthals. The Hayonim Natufian collection on the other hand is more varied, displaying means that range from those similar to recent Europeans to those similar to tropical African means. No data was given on the crural means. My educated guess is that Natufians are generally likely to display intermediate patterns of limb-proportions between that of tropical African means and those of recent Europeans, and not simplistic as the claim being attributed to Holliday, about Natufians being "cold-adapted". There is nothing particularly cold about the Levant. However, mixed ranges of limb-proportions may reflect biological contributions from groups ultimately originating from differing geographical locations from that of the Levant.

*Natufian samples have been collected from several different sites namely: Hayonim cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Eynan, and Nahal Oren. They are noticeably varied in their morphological manifestations; see for example...

The Natufian poplations sampled in the skeletal assemblages from Hayonim Cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Nahal Oren, and Eynan display a significant range of variability in both morphology and size (Table 1; see also Arensburg et al., 1975; Belfer-Cohen et al., 1992; Ladiray and Soliveres-Massei, 1988). To speak about a “Natufian cranial morphotype” is thus simplistic and potentially misleading, although some generalizations can be made. The similarities between Ohalo I1 H2 and the sample of Natufian males is strongest in the configuration of the facial skeleton (e.g., nasal and orbital size, height and breadth of the upper face), while strong differences may be seen in the calvaria. - Hershkovitz et al. 1995

The link provided by Truthcentric mentions nothing about the Natufians to my knowledge. As for the other citation provided without specified context, what indexes is the reader told about - brachial?, crural?, body linearity?, femoral head diameter?, etc. What specific Natufian samples were under study; are there noticeable variations across samples from different sites; is there a dominating trend within one sample vs. that of another sample from a different site, etc? I think these are obvious, if not fair questions to ask, so as to get a firm grip on from what angle the author (in this case Holliday) is arriving at his/her conclusion(s).

*Furthermore, there is a bias in the correlative value of limb proportion means. For instance, in all likelihood, tropical body plans are accommodated by considerable eumelanin concentration in the skin, due to the solar radiation intensity of tropical regions. Shorter limb proportions on the other hand, don't correlate as well with possible skin melanin concentration. Think for example, that KhoiSan groups are considerably darker than Europeans, but "sub-tropical" limb proportions have been reported among them. Likewise, although light in tone, the Inuit are still noticeably darker than western Europeans, while displaying fairly small indexes for their limb proportions. So, "cold-adapted" must not be mistaken to mean "white".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.

---

This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits.

---

What I meant was that the Natufian designation is based on cultural artifacts alone, not a phenotype. Not all Natufians displayed the so-called 'Negroid' traits. But all other cultures in the area did display non-negroid traits. Clearly we are dealing with a population of heterogeneous and not uniform background whatever the material culture is. Is this not similar to Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, some of whom were not "negroid" in appearance?

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeingagayloser:

Mary Mary.

---

..had a little lamb whose fleece was white as snow. We know the rhyme.
Now I have one for you:
Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack jumped hard onto an Asian man's d|ck. He rode so hard, he rode so fast, he did it so until he broke his- ass.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
we can disqualify Trenton’s Natufians from having anything to do with the later ones described by Brace, Keith and Angel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
His other data set of skeletons (Kebara) seems to be where the name of the pre-Natufian culture was derived from. I think that says enough.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
If my sources are correct,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Furthermore, the data used by Trenton hardly contradicts an African origin for the Natufians described by Brace, Keita and Angel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Unless MOM has anything to add I think the case is closed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits. I even remember Rasol explaining to me that the discovery of so-called "negroid" features among Natufian remains was what distinguished them from remains of other cultures in the area contemporary to them.

---

This post makes no sense, how can you say "let alone a certain set of phenotypic traits" and then go on to say that they were distinguished due to a certain set of traits.

---

What I meant was that the Natufian designation is based on cultural artifacts alone, not a phenotype. Not all Natufians displayed the so-called 'Negroid' traits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
How? What are you disqualifying the samples from?

Being Natufians?

From what it seems, you're trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype in different eras despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations.

---

quote:

---

despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.

---

quote:

---

it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

quote:

---

it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

Just pointing out the obvious contradiction, in one sentence you say Natufians don't sport a certain phenotype, then in the next sentence you state that the Natufians were distinguished due to specific phenoptypical characteristics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Just call me Jari:

^^^^LoL for real its a Nursery Rhyme..

Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?
With silver bells, and cockle shells,
And pretty maids all in a row.

---

Oh yes I forgot that one. But of course leave it to the botched Boygeorge to know his British nursery rhymes.

He still fulfills mine every time, though.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
How? What are you disqualifying the samples from?

Being Natufians?

From what it seems, you're trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype in different eras despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations.

---

LOL there ARE different phenotypes in different areas, anything wrong with me pointing this out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Note that your position is flawed, since it has the underlying assumption that when a population arises from two different sources, they can’t exhibit distinct phenotypes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations

---

Note that now all of a sudden, your ‘’Natufians’’ are a physical blend of features again, instead of a set of cultural features.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Let’s go back to what you said in your first post, where you did the EXACT same thing:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts. Btw, note that the Natufian culture is said to have arisen as a result of East Africans (Mushabeans?) moving into southwest Asia and coming together with the indigenous culture there.

---

^
Note that both statements are TOTALLY incorrect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Or at least, the last one is still awaiting documentation, specifically of WHEN these Mushabians came in, for you to say they co-created something.

---

quote:

---

Natufian Artifacts

Artifacts found at Natufian sites include grinding stones , used to process seeds, dried meats and fish for planned meals, and ochre for likely ritual practices. Flint and bone tools, and dentalium shell ornaments are also part of the Natufian assemblage. Specific tools created for harvesting various crops are a hallmark of Natufian assemblages, such as stone sickles. Large middens are known at Natufian sites, located where they were created (rather than secondary refuse pits). Dealing with refuse is one defining characteristics of the descendants of the Natufians, the Pre-Pottery Neolithic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
The sources I have provided shows the Africans immigrated later.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

What you CLEARLY did is, you took Brace’s sample, and extended it over the Natufians in general, while taking Trentons samples and made that say something about the Natufians in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
And now, when I have provided the sources to show that it is NOT the case that the Natufians are some homogenous group with static facial features of Brace’s resemblance to Niger-Congo speakers, and Trentons relative short limbs,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
you try to accuse me of ‘’trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype’’.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
From what I understood, Truthcentric OP stated that he was unsure about the African nature of certain Natufians, and he took Tentons sample to mean something about these samples that sported African morphology. This is in fact the SAME thing YOU did, as its obvious from your very first post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Hence my attempt to separate the two and make both samples do their own talking, to make sure everyone got the full picture, instead of your weird lumping.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Just like for example the Badarian samples do their own talking compared to contemporary lower or upper Egyptian samples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

^LOL, Natufian mulattoes with faces that resemble Niger Congo speakers and short limbs.
HAHAHAHA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Your other questions are nothing but laughable attempts to obscure the blunders you made, especially since you make no mention about the fact that you were wrong about the co-creation of Natufian culture, nor did you provide refutation that the African immigrants came when there already existed a population that was called ‘’Natufian’’.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Not at all, but I asked you how are you disqualifying these Natufians, why, and what are you disqualifying them from? Again point is Natufians were'nt homogenous and differing phenotypical characteristics amongst them doesn't make one more part of that Natufian culture than the next.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Where did I make this assumption? I didn't. And what do you mean by distinct phenotype?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
They never ceased to be either, it seems you have a little trouble understanding. Natufians were a population with a physical blend of features (phenotypically) and a specific set of cultural traits, which is recognized as Natufian culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
You have failed to show where the above would be incorrect, simply saying it is doesn't make it so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
…. Uses Christopher Ehret …..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Do your authors (Ehret, D 'Agostino) give reverences where they got their co-creation theory from? It seems that the archeologists on the ground, who have had live experience with the skeletons in question have a different story to tell regarding the relative lateness of the skeletons that bear African phenotypes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
What sources? My sources show Africans migrating into the Levant during the Mesolithic wherein the Natufian culture arose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm.
These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities.
There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Actually no, I took Brace's comments, Angel's, Garrod's, Mc'cowns etc...on cranio-facial characteristics...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
and Trenton isn't the only anthropologist to note differing limb proportions amongst the Natufians, (note Explorers post above) which was to note that it was already known that this population would have these intermediate fluctuating limb proportions due to the evidence that shows Natufians arose from immigrating Africans into southwest Asia coming together with a population in SW Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
which was to note that it was already known that this population would have these intermediate fluctuating limb proportions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
I accused you of this on the grounds that you were trying to exclude samples from others (all Natufians) seemingly in a fashion meant to establish a specific phenotype for the Natufians, meanwhile it has been noted that they were not a homogeneous group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
As explained above I'm going off more than Brace and Trentons words on the Natufians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Can you establish that the cold adapted limbs found by Trenton relate to Brace's sample that fell in between Niger congo speakers and Nubians? If not, why associate Trentons cold adapted limbs with Brace's sample?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well for starters how about the way they relate is through the fact that they're both Natufian samples , secondly, can you establish that there were two different Natufian populations of the time that might warrant your query?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I'll assume this wasn't a strawman and that you misunderstood the question. I didn't ask HOW they were related, I asked what the basis was for generalised nature the following statement:
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.
________________________________________
And whether the inconsistent results of cranial/post cranial meassurements could not have been the result of the use of different samples. And that, had the same samples been used, we might have had different results.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Well, it "could" be anything, if you can find evidence for it, I'll take a look.

Hence the Niger Congo cranio-facial characteristics with more cold adapted limbs is not illogical for a population that arose out of two different ones (populations).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Again, the point is Natufians were Natufians, and not a homogenous group with a specific phenotype.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Don't put words in my mouth, my point is clear, the Natufians were a heterogeneous group, so in essence not illogical to see these differing phenotypical characteristics,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
And what do you mean by distinct phenotype?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Here's the thing, genetically we have evidence of a population from Africa moving into the Levant during the Mesolithic...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Not at all, but I asked you how are you disqualifying these Natufians, why, and what are you disqualifying them from? Again point is Natufians were'nt homogenous and differing phenotypical characteristics amongst them doesn't make one more part of that Natufian culture than the next.

---

I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
My point is clear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I was disqualifying the conclusions drawn from one specific study that used two sets of skeletons from having anything to do (post cranially) with other studies that found their sample to be ethnically African, until it can be proven that said samples exhibited cold adapted limbs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Where did I make this assumption? I didn't. And what do you mean by distinct phenotype?

---

Read the last post from the previous thread. As a matter of fact, read the sources you claim to have used beside Brace and Trenton.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
YOU have trouble understanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
You have failed to show where the above would be incorrect, simply saying it is doesn't make it so.

---

I have called you out on the fact that 4 specimen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I have also called you out on the fact that Brace’s sample was just a sample, and that were other ethnic groups present that did not display the traits you attribute to Natufians in your first post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
…. Uses Christopher Ehret …..

---

Who do you think you telling this to?
I myself have referred to CE’s interview before, this is old news.
What I asked you, and what you substituted for this old CE article is

---

No, dunce, you asked me for evidence of Mushabaens moving into southwest Asia and ultimately giving rise to the Natufians. Which has been provided per Ehret.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
You know what as a matter of fact,look here Kalonji, I'm not going to go back and forth with YOU. On something I know I'm right on.( Have too many things to do). Which is that the Natufians formed out of a migration from Africa into the Levant. Two different populations, the Mushabaens and Kebarans are who are noted archaeologically to have created the Natufian population. Genetically we have Africans moving into the Levant during the Mesolithic. Lingusitically it has shown as well. Hence my point that differing features amongst Natufians is not new, and is rather logical considering...

"The population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system." ---Bar Yosef

If anything you have differs or refutes specifically from what is posted above let it be known. If not, I have nothing more to say to you. As it is clear you have no argument against my point. Only against the way something might have been said? Which in essence was actually your own assumption and misinterpretation as I note.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
There has to have been two separate migration one in which the an African-like modern population moving into and making contact with Neanderthal population with archaic features and cold adopted.

The next occurred thousands of years later in connection with the rise of the first farmers hunter-gatherers began to settle down see Tepi Gawa
http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=pav&action=display&thread=47
This Documentary series maybe of use The First Europeans.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
Anyone who has read this thread knows how wrong you are, I think they're just silent out of pity for you. Since that is the case, I'm just going to leave it at that.

Weren't posters like you supposed to be on another level?

LOL

Conclusion:

-In contrary to what you've stated, the Natufians were NOT cold adapted since Trenton's samples did not include the African ethnic groups.
-In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.
-In contrary tot what you've stated, Natufian culture is older than the African migration.
-You were NOT aware of other sources beside Brace and Trenton, hence why you swithed from ''cold adapted'''limbs to ''intermediate'' after said sources were posted. (LIAR)
-Co-creation theories proposed by Mindovermatter have not been subscribed to by Ehret or any other authors, and if they did they were assumptuous. This is why you had a relentless tendency to quote irrelevant matters, such as ''grindstones'', migration to Europe, etc.
-And no, ''post crania'' doesn't always refer to the back of the head. This is just your desire to be right. Since you were steadily taking losses, you thought you could ''own'' something trivial. But no, sorry. SMH

Postcrania[p] (postcranium, adjective: postcranial) in zoology and vertebrate paleontology refers to all or part of the skeleton apart from the skull. Frequently, fossil remains, e.g. of dinosaurs or other extinct tetrapods, consist of partial or isolated skeletal elements; these are referred to as "postcrania".

EPIC FAIL
Can't even be right when going offtopic
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
What is the difference between a tropically adapted individual and a cold adapted individual?
They don't cluster with each other on PCA plots.
 

---

Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:

quote:

---

Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.

---

This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:

quote:

---

Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.

---

This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?

---

Evergreen Writes:

The Khoisan of South Africa are also "somewhat cold-adapted" does that mean they are not Black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:

quote:

---

Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.

---

This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?

---

Evergreen Writes:

The Khoisan of South Africa are also "somewhat cold-adapted" does that mean they are not Black?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Whites are simply Black Albinos: genetics tells us that they separated from Blacks and lived separately from about 40,000 years ago. Trenton W. Holliday and the rest, just really need to accept that.[/b] [/QB]

---

40,000 years is ample time on a evolutionary basis for cold adaptation to occur.
Evolutionary adaptation is observed in thousands of animal species that have specialized characteristics adapted to given climate.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^Sorry Lioness, as usual what you say is nonsense.
Central Asia is NOT the Arctic idiot!

The UV index is moderate, and as far as I know, Polar Bears don't live, and did NOT evolve in Apple Orchards!

{Did you know that Apples were native to central Asia?}





Apple orchard near Tamga (Issyk Kul Province, Kyrgyzstan). Photo: Ondřej Žváček, August 24, 2008. Located in Central Asia, landlocked and mountainous, Kyrgyzstan is bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west, Tajikistan to the southwest and People's Republic of China to the east. Its capital and largest city is Bishkek.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
[QB] ^Sorry Lioness, as usual what you say is nonsense.
Central Asia is NOT the Arctic idiot!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyingass:

Some of the Khoisans were white, the earliest white people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

Evergreen/Anguish/DJ

What is your opinion on Eurasian Mesolithic Natufians resembling Mesolithic northwest Africans and Upper paleolithic Europeans?

Do you think the cranio-facial resemblace was common for pre-neolithic populations, or that there is a link?

In the csse of Eurasian Mesolithic Natufians and Upper paleolithic Europeans, relatively distant shared ancestry should be expected, but what about northwest Africans?

---

Well I for one am not as familiar with the remains of mesolithic peoples of the Middle East. The Natufians were the only ones I ever hear of whose features are discussed. I remember Rasol telling me the reason why their features are discussed so much was that they were 'distinct' from other contemporary populations in the region. In my opinion, I would have to assume that that other Eurasians (in the vicinity) at that time didn't have such craniofacial features as pronounced in broad morphology.
 

---

Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
Originally posted by the Explorer:

*For what it's worth, data referenced by Hershkovitz et al. 1995 puts the brachial index means of the non-Hayonim Natufian samples at 77% and that of Hayonim Natufian samples in the range of 75-78. Apparently, the non-Hayonim collection of Natufian samples report a mean that is greater than that observed for either recent Europeans or Neanderthals. The Hayonim Natufian collection on the other hand is more varied, displaying means that range from those similar to recent Europeans to those similar to tropical African means. No data was given on the crural means.

My educated guess is that Natufians are generally likely to display intermediate patterns of limb-proportions between that of tropical African means and those of recent Europeans, and not simplistic as the claim being attributed to Holliday, about Natufians being "cold-adapted". There is nothing particularly cold about the Levant. However, mixed ranges of limb-proportions may reflect biological contributions from groups ultimately originating from differing geographical locations from that of the Levant.

*Natufian samples have been collected from several different sites namely: Hayonim cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Eynan, and Nahal Oren. They are noticeably varied in their morphological manifestations; see for example...

The Natufian poplations sampled in the skeletal assemblages from Hayonim Cave, Kebara, El-Wad, Shukba, Nahal Oren, and Eynan display a significant range of variability in both morphology and size (Table 1; see also Arensburg et al., 1975; Belfer-Cohen et al., 1992; Ladiray and Soliveres-Massei, 1988). To speak about a “Natufian cranial morphotype” is thus simplistic and potentially misleading, although some generalizations can be made. The similarities between Ohalo I1 H2 and the sample of Natufian males is strongest in the configuration of the facial skeleton (e.g., nasal and orbital size, height and breadth of the upper face), while strong differences may be seen in the calvaria. - Hershkovitz et al. 1995

The link provided by Truthcentric mentions nothing about the Natufians to my knowledge. As for the other citation provided without specified context, what indexes is the reader told about - brachial?, crural?, body linearity?, femoral head diameter?, etc. What specific Natufian samples were under study; are there noticeable variations across samples from different sites; is there a dominating trend within one sample vs. that of another sample from a different site, etc? I think these are obvious, if not fair questions to ask, so as to get a firm grip on from what angle the author (in this case Holliday) is arriving at his/her conclusion(s).

*Furthermore, there is a bias in the correlative value of limb proportion means. For instance, in all likelihood, tropical body plans are accommodated by considerable eumelanin concentration in the skin, due to the solar radiation intensity of tropical regions. Shorter limb proportions on the other hand, don't correlate as well with possible skin melanin concentration. Think for example, that KhoiSan groups are considerably darker than Europeans, but "sub-tropical" limb proportions have been reported among them. Likewise, although light in tone, the Inuit are still noticeably darker than western Europeans, while displaying fairly small indexes for their limb proportions. So, "cold-adapted" must not be mistaken to mean "white".

Indeed. Truthcentric's post seems similar to arguments on another board which he frequents, where one poster labored heavily to argue for yet another variant of the "incoming whites" theory - only this time, using "cold-adapted" as a code word to signify "white." He was apparently troubled by the case of the Natufians, who are called precursors of a more advanced Neolithic by some writers. To have a culture -wherein so-called "negroid" elements are so well represented - usher in one of the most significant periods in human culture apparently rankled, since it did not fit his "Mediterranean supreme" race model. Said poster drew heavily on the obsolete work of Carleton Coons who in examining one ancient Natufian skull boldly pronounced it "perfectly European." Ironically for the "Mediterranean" model, Coons also held that "Mediterraneans proper" sometimes had "negroid" tendencies.



As you say above though "cold adapted" is not at all a designator of "white". Indeed, since Africans vary on so many features, that they would vary on limb proportions is hardly at all surprising, as the example of the San peoples shows. Just as their are African peoples with narrow noses, so there are those with varying limb proportions. In addition, the early peoples of Southwest Asia, according to Hanihara 1996, looked like tropical Africans to begin with, undermining assorted "white" models.

Whatever the particular blend that made up the Natufians, over whatever periods, most mainstream scholars agree that they show strong African elements represented.

More info from another mainstream writer:

"“A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987).

This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998).

"This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005)..”
--F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology. 80:5, pp. 535-564
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ This goes back to what the author meant by "somewhat" cold adapted. The question is how much cold adapted. As Evergreen pointed out the Khoisan of subtropical southern Africa are little more 'cold adapted' compared to peoples of equatorial Africa. I would imagine this to be the case with populations aboriginal to subtropical North Africa who then migrated into the Levant.
 

---

Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ This goes back to what the author meant by "somewhat" cold adapted. The question is how much cold adapted. As Evergreen pointed out the Khoisan of subtropical southern Africa are little more 'cold adapted' compared to peoples of equatorial Africa. I would imagine this to be the case with populations aboriginal to subtropical North Africa who then migrated into the Levant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Anyone who has read this thread knows how wrong you are,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I've provided evidence for the above,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
I think they're just silent out of pity for you. Since that is the case, I'm just going to leave it at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Weren't posters like you supposed to be on another level?

LOL

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Conclusion:

-In contrary to what you've stated, the Natufians were NOT cold adapted since Trenton's samples did not include the African ethnic groups.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
-In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
-In contrary tot what you've stated, Natufian culture is older than the African migration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
-You were NOT aware of other sources beside Brace and Trenton, hence why you swithed from ''cold adapted'''limbs to ''intermediate'' after said sources were posted. (LIAR)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
-Co-creation theories proposed by Mindovermatter have not been subscribed to by Ehret or any other authors, and if they did they were assumptuous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
This is why you had a relentless tendency to quote irrelevant matters, such as ''grindstones'', migration to Europe, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
-And no, ''post crania'' doesn't always refer to the back of the head.

---

If you say so.... Stop quoting Wiki Kalnoji...


Definition of POSTCRANIAL : of or relating to the part of the body caudal to the head <a postcranial skeleton>



post·cra·ni·al (pst-krn-l) adj. 1. Situated behind the cranium. 2. Consisting of the parts or structures behind the cranium: the postcranial skeleton of an animal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
EPIC FAIL
Can't even be right when going offtopic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Originally posted by Kalonji:
I've provided evidence for the above,
________________________________________
Where kalonji? I've asked you numerous times, where is your evidence??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
This is what you call a fallacy, case and point, I never said the Natufians were cold adapted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Besides, the only Africans who do not display this tropical characteristic, would be sub-tropical populations like the Khoi and San.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Otherwise you can compare them to coastal north Africans who have been shown to be intermediate, specifically due to non indigenous African influence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
What other African ethic group might align with the Natufians in Trentons sample? Any idea?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
How do you say they "didnt", wherein the next sentence, you say they did?

But only Braces samples? This makes absolutely no sense.

If Braces samples signifies this in four remains, how can you say they did not? You can't!!

Other samples of Natufians analyzed have been noted to resemble modern Africans, that have been deemed "Negroid".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
-In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Really?
Where have you provided evidence for this?
Please specify. Remember Natufians arose late Mesolithic. So provide evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm.
These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities.
There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Are you slow?

"The population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system." ---Bar Yosef

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
No kid, I quoted that in reference to Ehret and his linguistic evidence which indicates the words for this action are older in Africa than Asia, and appear later in Asia.

With noting of archaeological movement, along with genetic evdidence... it all goes together..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
If you say so.... Stop quoting Wiki Kalnoji...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia
Trenton W. Holliday (Mar., 2000)
Abstract
There is long-standing disagreement
(....)
In this paper I attempt to resolve this issue by examining postcranial measures reflective of body shape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Originally posted by Kalonji:
I've provided evidence for the above,
________________________________________
Where kalonji? I've asked you numerous times, where is your evidence??

---

Can you point out to me where I said that, I can’t answer your question when you leave out the surrounding context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
This is what you call a fallacy, case and point, I never said the Natufians were cold adapted.

---

Correct, you said ‘’more cold adapted’’.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
And you also used Brace’s cranio-facial measurements that were based on 4 crania to say something about Natufians in general. LOL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Besides, the only Africans who do not display this tropical characteristic, would be sub-tropical populations like the Khoi and San.

---

Aaaaaand that is relevant because…?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
How do you say they "didnt", wherein the next sentence, you say they did?

But only Braces samples? This makes absolutely no sense.

If Braces samples signifies this in four remains, how can you say they did not? You can't!!

Other samples of Natufians analyzed have been noted to resemble modern Africans, that have been deemed "Negroid".

---

Huh..? You mean you’re so ignorant that you can’t even comprehend how 4 crania may not be representive of an ethnic group, much less an entire population that contained at least two ethnic groups?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
[QB] Dude.. 4 crania from the African component that practiced Natufians culture fell in between Niger Congo speakers and Nubians in Brace’s plot.

---

How do you know they practiced Natufian culture?

Where is this stated in the document? How do you know they aren't Natufians?

I've read Brace, therefore when he says Niger Congo, I know he means "Negroid", which aligns with other older analyses, as mentioned in earlier posts, who have studied Natufians coming to the conclusion of "Negroid" cranio-facial characteristics.

The above along with all other data tells me that the Natufians not displaying a tropically adapted body plan akin to modern tropical Africans, doesnt necessarily insinuate that they can not still align with Africans cranio-facially or that Natufians became African later on.

This is logical, and most likely to happen when a population from SW Asia and Africa combine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
This doesn’t take the Eurasian component into account.

---

How do you know exactly that it doesnt take the Eurasian component into account? I'll wait for this evidence...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
If Brace included the other component, the result would have been different. But you just don’t get it, or you don’t want to get it.

---

Taken into account all evidence on Natufian remains archaeologically, genetically, linguistically etc... the Eurasian and African culture was equal.

Therefore regardless of the results, it's not surprising.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
50% of Keita’s Badarian sample fell in the range of what his Gabonese sample was capable of expressing, but this doesn’t mean that both groups clustered in Keitas study.

---

The Badarian and Gabonese didn't combine to create the Natufian culture, Kebarans and Mushabians did.

Therefore there can be either or in the Natufian population and ones cranio-facial or limb proportions has absolutely nothing to do with it, instead its the cultural significance.

Boils back down to the fact that its know that there was an African component and a SW. Asian component that contributed to the rise of the Natufians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
So I’mma put it up here again, and I dare you to say I’m wrong:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji:
-In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers. 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.

---

^I’m curious to see if your hard headedness will push you to keep arguing over something you’ve obviously lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Really?
Where have you provided evidence for this?
Please specify. Remember Natufians arose late Mesolithic. So provide evidence.

---

One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972)

See the word ‘’appearing’’ and the word ‘’latest’’? What does it mean when something ‘’appears’’ in the ‘’latest’’ part of a phase (Natufian hunters)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
Note that Brace’s choice of words imply the same, in that the African traits he discusses don’t just pertain to ANY Epipalaeolithic Natufian, but specifically the Natufian that was contemporary, and involved in the making of the things we associate with the neolithic age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
It just baffles me that you missed me quoting this before, and that you’re apparently not even aware of what Angel and others have been saying all along. This is what I had posted before, and you have yet to respond to it, and even worse, you keep acting like I haven’t shown it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm.
These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities.
There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years.

---

Exactly, and judging by your inability to grasp the meaning of ‘’appearing negroid traits’’ in Natufians ‘’latest hunters’’ in Angels words, you clearly haven’t absorbed much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Are you slow?

"The population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation, which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system." ---Bar Yosef

---

No, not slow, but you obviously are!
According to that quote, Bar Yosef makes no claims about a co-creation event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
No kid, I quoted that in reference to Ehret and his linguistic evidence which indicates the words for this action are older in Africa than Asia, and appear later in Asia.

With noting of archaeological movement, along with genetic evdidence... it all goes together..

---

It goes together to argue against an invisible opponent that only you seem to have words with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Point being is when I know a population to be mixed (like Natufians were), the limb proportions showing a somewhat more cold adapted ratio, with cranio-facial characteristics aligning with "Negroid"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
(Niger-Congo) samples is purely logical, considering what we know about their origins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
What we know is that Natufians arose from these two groups, Kebarans and Mushabians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
No dunce, anyway you stated...
-In contrary to what you've stated, Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers . 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.
^^Those samples Brace analyzed were Natufians, hence Natufians did resemble Niger Congo speakers.
Hence you CAN'T say Natufians did not resemble etc...because they actually did.
Regardless of how many samples in the bunch they were still Natufians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
What you're doing is excluding samples as being representative of Natufians becuase they contrast, my point is the contrast is logical considering the Natufian origins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
How do you know they practiced Natufian culture?
Where is this stated in the document? How do you know they aren't Natufians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
The above along with all other data tells me that the Natufians not displaying a tropically adapted body plan akin to modern tropical Africans, doesnt necessarily insinuate that they can not still align with Africans cranio-facially or that Natufians became African later on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
This is logical, and most likely to happen when a population from SW Asia and Africa combine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: How do you know exactly that it doesnt take the Eurasian component into account? I'll wait for this evidence...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
If Brace included the other component, the result would have been different. But you just don’t get it, or you don’t want to get it.

---

Taken into account all evidence on Natufian remains archaeologically, genetically, linguistically etc... the Eurasian and African culture was equal.
Therefore regardless of the results, it's not surprising.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
50% of Keita’s Badarian sample fell in the range of what his Gabonese sample was capable of expressing, but this doesn’t mean that both groups clustered in Keitas study.

---

The Badarian and Gabonese didn't combine to create the Natufian culture, Kebarans and Mushabians did.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Certainly doesn't mean Africans weren't present beforehand as noted through all disciplines, unless you think Africans only come in "Negroid traits", do you?
^^Point above, just because one doesn't fit a "Negroid trait" profile doesn't make one not African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.

---

Indeed a clear link, not a later contribution to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
that the later Natufians were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm.
These late Natufians represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities.
There was, apparently, a change of race during the Natufian.

---

---

Change of race? Are you serious? The Badarians differed from later dynastic Egyptians in limb proportions, and are noted to be due to more Nilotic influxes, does this mean that the Badarians weren't African? Or that the Badarians weren't Egyptians?
Change of race? You still believe in race huh? So is a an African who is not extremely tropically adapted not as African as others who simply display a tropical profile, not extreme?
Apparently some Euro-nuts assume that the population of Egypt arose as white and became more African later on due to this incidence of more tropical limbs during later dynasties.
Is that what you're trying to imply here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years.

---

Exactly, and judging by your inability to grasp the meaning of ‘’appearing negroid traits’’ in Natufians ‘’latest hunters’’ in Angels words, you clearly haven’t absorbed much.

---

Sorry kid, but "appearing" and "latest hunters" doesn't imply that the Natufians became more African later in time.
Try again. As noted many Africans do not fit a "Negroid trait" profile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Damn kid, you're slow, the point is I'm debunking your claim that the Natufian culture was already in place before the African immigration, wherein its stated that the overflow from African played a DEFINITE role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
No, it goes against you stating that Natufian culture arose before the African migration into the Levant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
Still awaiting your evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
Sub-Saharan influences would have been "diluted" out of the genetic picture due to interbreeding between Neolithic migrants from the Near East and indigenous hunter-gatherers whom they came in contact with.

---

Mindo, throw in the towel already, your ego's out of control

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form


C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox,¶ A. Russell Nelson, Sotiris K. Manolis,** and Pan Qifeng††Received September 20, 2005.

excerpt:


In this figure, one can see a clear link between the Niger-Congo sample and the Natufians. The Prehistoric/Recent Northeast African sample also has a subsequent link to the Niger-Congo sample in Fig. 3. Yet the D2 values in Table 3 show that it is slightly closer to Late Prehistoric Eurasia than to the Algerian Neolithic, Modern Europe, and Modern Mediterranean and that it is farthest from the Niger-Congo, the Natufians, and the Basques. Although the Algerian Neolithic sample has an even more residual link to this cluster, the D2 figures in Table 3 show that it is almost as far from the Niger-Congo twig as from the Basques and Natufians. The generally high D2 values for the Natufian sample in Table 3 are almost certainly a reflection of the very small sample size.


The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
*yawns* *sighs*

It all boils down to Kalonji's limited knowledge on the Natufians. As it's clear he thinks Africans came later in time and Natufians were already established. WRONG!! If anyone has access to jstor for the following article so this clown Kalonji can be put to rest quickly, let me know. Seems he has too much time on his hands and likes to cloud the thread with nonsense that he barely knows about...

Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest. Asia: an archaeological perspective. O. BAR-YOSEF.

In the above its noted;

"The population overflow from Northeast Africa played a definite role in the establishment of the Natufian adaptation , which in turn led to the emergence of agriculture as a new subsistence system."

Not a role later in time to something that was already established (as Kalonji foolishly thinks), but a definite role in the establishment, of the Natufian adaptation. We all know what established means don't we?

es·tab·lish (-stblsh)
tr.v. es·tab·lished, es·tab·lish·ing, es·tab·lish·es
1.
a. To set up; found. See Synonyms at found1.
b. To bring about; generate: establish goodwill in the neighborhood.
2.
a. To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install: They established me in my own business.
b. To make firm or secure.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
^
Absolutely no response to my refutation of your laughable claims, that you've made throughout this thread. Instead you just run and hide to your last little refuge: whether or not the culture was co-created.



Well, I'm waiting.
Just don't distort my use of ''Latecomers''.

I made it clear that the African type was present and involved with the making of the things we associate with neolithic. This has no bearing on Natufian culture, that obviously pre dated the transition from hunting to farming.

And the act of farming in and of itself is not culture, but a technological achievement.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
^Do you even know what is meant with ''adaptation''?

If so, how does it relate to Natufian culture, pray tell.
 

---

Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

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.

---

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.

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.

Link;The Natufian Culture in the Levant,
Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:
^^This is what I've been stating this whole time.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

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?

---

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.

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.

Link;The Natufian Culture in the Levant,
Threshold to the Origins of Agriculture [/QB]

---

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).

---

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.

---

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,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
and that these Mushabians came from Africa.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
You think the Africans were latecomers, but it's clear that they weren't.

---

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 ...

---

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".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
and that these Mushabians came from Africa.

---

Arguing with invisable opponants again?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
There were African archeological finds near Kebera sinds 15.000 BP according to Bar 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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:
The Meoslithic 2 is noted to
Late Natufian (10,800–9500 BC).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Really? Hmm, my evidence shows that Africans (Mushabians) were in the Levant prior to the rise of Natufians

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
(which right away debunks your premise that Africans were latecomers to the Levant)

---

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..?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
They (Africans) were already present in the Levant with numerous disperals begininng in the Mesolithic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MindoverMatter718:

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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

---

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).

---

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?

---

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??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

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

---

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!!
 

---

Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

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^

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:
yes I did read all of the information you guys have posted over time.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 

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.
 

---

Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Sumerians originated in Africa, that's why their kings were called the "Kings of Kush".

---

Were they recent migrants from Africa or remnants of the OOA black population?
 

---

Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
 
they were not black, that is silly.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Hammer

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
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
anguishofbeing

Yeah I guess you have a point. This will be my last post in this thread.

Peace
 

---

Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 
Not to speak for Anguish but he never made the claim that they were blks from Africa just that they were blks period.but he can clarify if he choose to.
 

---

Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
 
that the sumerians were blacks from anyplace is an outlandish claim without a scrap of supportive evidence. I have heard some really nutty things on this board but this one is near the top of the list.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I feel that their should be three criterion that indicates the founders of a particular civilization was African, or the result of indigenous development and creation of ancient Asian , European and American Blacks.

These criteria are:
1. Archaeological and anthropological evidence linking the Africans to a particular civilization;
2. Presence of genetically related languages; and
3. Historical evidence and social technologies invented over the past 5k years.


The archaeological evidence is clear. The River Valley civilizations of Africa and Asia were related.


The Africans who took civilization to Asia used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982:xxiv) .The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000 3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites.

The best evidence for Africans founding the first civilizations are vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya (c.2100 1700 BC). The IVBI workshop vessels have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Egypt to Mesopotamia; and Soviet Uzbekistan, to the Indus Valley

The archaeological evidence suggest a widespread dispersal of of Proto Saharan tribes between 3800 2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece.

This archaeological evidence shows an African origin for the River Valley civilizations.




Henry Rawlinson used the Book of Genesis to find the identity of the Mesopotamia. He made it clear that the original inhabitants of Babylonia were represented by the name Nimrod and were represented by the family of Ham: Kushites, Egyptians and etc. This name came from the popularity among these people of hunting the leopard (Nimri). And as noted in earlier post the Egyptian and Nubian rulers always associated leopard spots with royalty, just as Siva is associated with the feline. As a result, Rawlinson used an African language Galla, to decipher the cuneiform writing.

The Sumerians and Elamites came from Africa, like the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. This is why the Elamite and Sumerian languages are closely related to African and Dravidian languages.

The Kushites when they migrated from Middle Africa to Asia continued to call themselves Kushites. This is most evident in place names and the names of gods. The Kassites, chief rulers of Iran occupied the central part of the Zagros. The Kassite god was called Kashshu, which was also the name of the people. The K-S-H, name element is also found in India. For example Kishkinthai, was the name applied to an ancient Dravidian kingdom in South India. Also it should be remembered that the Kings of Sumer, were often referred to as the " Kings of Kush".

The major Kushite tribe in Central Asia was called Kushana. The Kushan of China were styled Ta Yueh-ti or "the Great Lunar Race". Along the Salt Swamp, there was a state called Ku-Shih of Tibet. The city of K-san, was situated in the direction of Kushan, which was located in the Western part of the Gansu Province of China.




The Elamites later conquered Sumer. They called this line of Kings,he "King of Kish'.
This term has affinity to the term Kush,that was given to the Kerma dynasty, founded by the C-Group people of Kush. It is interesting to note that the Elamite language, is closely related to the African languages including Egyptian and the Dravidian languages of India.

The most important Kushite colony in Iran was ancient Elam. The Elamites called their country KHATAM or KHALTAM (Ka-taam). The capital of Khaltam which we call Susa, was called KHUZ (Ka-u-uz) by the Aryans, NIME (Ni-may) by the people of Sumer, and KUSHSHI (Cush-she) by the Elamites.In the Akkadian inscriptions the Elamites were called GIZ-BAM (the land of the bow). The ancient Chinese or Bak tribesmen which dominate China today called the Elamites KASHTI. Moreover, in the Bible the Book of Jeremiah (xlxx,35), we read "bow of Elam". It is interesting to note that both Khaltam-ti and Kashti as the name for Elam, agrees with Ta-Seti, the ancient name for Nubia located in the Meroitic Sudan.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan:
And speaking of Mesopotamia, the peoples there were tropical and it is in an Arid Tropic climkate.

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


King Gudea


Rawlinson was convinced that there was a relationship between the Sumerians and Africans. As a result he used two African languages: one Semitic and the other Cushitic to decipher the cuneiform writing.



Rawlinson was sure that the ancient Nubians and Puntites founded Mesopotamian civilization.(1)

The Sumerians came from the Sahara before it became a desert. Affinities exist between Nubia ware and pottery from Ennedi and Tibesti.

These Saharan people were round-headed ancient Mediterranean type. They were often referred to as Cafsa or Capsians; a group of people not devoid of negroid characteristics according to J Desanges.(11) Wyatt MacGaffey, claims that the term "Mediterranean" is an anthropological euphemism for "Negro".

The boats of the Saharan people are similar to those found on ancient engravings of boats in Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Many of the boats found in the eastern desert of Egypt and among the Red Sea Hills show affinities to Mesopotamian models.

S.N. Kramer in The Sumerians, claimed that Makan was Egypt, Mekluhha was Nubia-Punt, and the Indus Valley was Dilmun. Today Dilmun is believed to be found near Arabia. But the archaeological evidence suggest that the Indus Valley which was settled by Dravidian speakers was the source of the lapis lazuli , which made Dilmun famous .(2)

Archaeological research has confirmed that cultural interaction existed between the contemporary civilizations of the 4th and 3rd millenia B.C. Extensive trade routes connected the Proto-Dravidians of the Indus Valley, with African people in Egypto-Nubia, and the Elamites and Sumerians. P. Kohl discovered that vessels from IVBI worshop at Tepe Yahya, have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Soviet Uzbekistan to the Indus Valley, and Sumerian, Elamite and Egyptian sites. (2) In addition, we find common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and Heladic Greece.

It appears that the locus for this distribution of cultural traditions and technology was the Saharan-Nubian zone or Kush. This would explain why the Sumerians and Elamites often referred to themselves as "ksh". For example the ancient Sumerians called their dynasty "Kish". The words "kish", "kesh" and "kush" were also names for ancient Nubia-Sudan.

The Elamites also came from Kush. According to the classical writer Strabo, Susa the centre of the Elamite civilization was founded by Tithonus, king of Kush.

B.B. Lal has shown conclusively that the Dravidians came from Nubia and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty.(3) They both used a common black-and-red ware (BRW) which Lal found was analogous to ceramics used by the megalithic people in India who also used analogous pottery signs identical to those found in the corpus of Indus Valley writing. (4)


Singh believes that this pottery spread from Nubia, through Mesopotamia and Iran southward into India.(5) The earliest examples of this BRW date to the Amratian period (c4000-3500 B.C.).

This same BRW was found at the lowest levels of Harappan sites at Lothal and Rangpur. After 1700 B.C. This ceramic tradition spread southward into megalithic India.(6) It is also found in Uzbekistan and China. (12)

Dilmun was an important source of lapis lazuli. If the Indus Valley civilization was Dilmun as hypothesized by Kramer, it would explain the control of the Harappans/ or Dilmunites of this important metal.

The Indus Valley people spoke a Dravidian language.(7) The Harappans controlled the lazurite region of Badakhshan, and the routes to the tin and copper fields of central Asia.(8)

The major city of the Harappans/Dilmunites in the lapis lazuli region was Shortughai. Francefort believes that many lapis lazuli works were transported to Iran and Mesopotamia from Shortughai.(9) The BRW at Shortughai is typically Harappan.

When we put all of this evidence together we must agree that there is some historical evidence for a connection between the NKSD people. These people used similar arrow heads, red-and-black pottery, and intercultural vessels.This shows the common culture of these people.

Footnotes

(1)C.B. Rawlinson, "Notes on the early history of Babylon", Jour. Royal Asiatic Society (First Series) 15, p.230.

(2). Philip L. Kohl, "The balance of trade in the mid-Third millenium BC", Current Anthropology, 19 (1978), pp.463-492.

(3)B.B. Lal, "From megalithic to the Harappan: Tracing back the graffiti on pottery", Ancient India, 16 (1960).

(4)B.B. Lal, "The only Asian mission in threatened Nubia", The Illustrated London Times, 20 April 1963.

(5) H.N. Singh, History and Archaeology of Black-and-Red Ware , Delhi, 1982.

(6) C.A. Winters, "The Dravido-Harappan Colonization of Central Asia", Central Asiatic Journal , 34 (1-2), pp.120-144.

(7) C.A. Winters, "The Dravidian language of the Harappan script", Archiv Orientalni, (1990).

(8) B. Brenjes, "On Proto-Elamite Iran", Current Anthropology, 24 (2) (1984), pp. 240-.

(9) Henri-Paul Franceport, "La civilisation de l'Indus aux rives de l'Oxus", Archeologie , (Decembre) p.50.

(10) Ibid., p.49.

(11) J. Desnages, "The Proto-Berbers". In General History of Africa vol.2, (Ed.) by G. Mokhtar (Heinemann Educational Books, London) p.25.

(12) Andersson,T.G. 1934. CHILDREN OF THE YELLOW EARTH:STUDIES IN PREHISTORIC CHINA. London.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.

To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.

As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.

Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.

A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.

A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.

Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.

Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.

The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.

Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson's earlier research.

It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.

Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.

There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves ºalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.

In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.

The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.

To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


Gutian....Sumerian

To learn more about the Blacks of Levant and Elam see my video on the ancient Kushites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-2xjWIIxK8&feature=player_embedded

.
 

---

Posted by Hammer (Member # 17003) on :
 
The evidence is not clear clyde. Nobody agrees with that position. You lay out a criteria and then you fall into one supposition after another.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
come on son they not rocking beards like this in Africa







Mesopotamian civilizations (Sumerian, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans and Medians) devoted great care to oiling and dressing their beards, using tongs and curling irons to create elaborate ringlets and tiered patterns.

Look below, this is not a match:




you mus be trippin
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally :

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
[QUOTE]Originally :
[qb]
Brachycephalic Eurasian

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
Elliot Smith first describes this late coming group into Mesopotamia this way - "...another race, also of short stature and brunet traits, had been evolving features distinctive of itself. In the course of ages those features of cranium and face to which I have repeatedly referred as "Armenoid" were gradually assumed, as well as another trait peculiarly distinctive of this group of peoples, the long beard, which forms perhaps the most obvious contrast between this population and the "Brown Race"
Where the original home of the "Long-bearded Race" was is not certain, It is highly probable that theri area of characterization was in Russian Turkestan,..."

---

^^^^^
Elliot Smith, The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilization, 1911
(dana's real up to date research)

page 79 of the same book:

"Within recent years many scholars have advocated that there is a large element of Negro in the composition of Proto-Egyptian population, and Ripley, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding of Sergei's views, boldly states that the Egyptians and the whole Mediterranean race are descendants of Negros!
There can be no doubt that in respect of many features the Brown and Black Races present many points of similarity. Some of these resemblances are no doubt due to the fact that both peoples retain many traits common to them and primitive man; but other points of likeness cannot be explained in this manner. That there is no close affinity between these two races is shown by an analysis and comparison of the intimate structure of the bodies of representative individuals. In the texture of bone, the architecture of the skull, the nature of the asymmetry of the body and the character of the variations- in these and many other respects there is evidence of the profound gap that separates the Negro from the rest of mankind, including Egyptian."

dana, you didn't want to go there
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
Elliot Smith first describes this late coming group into Mesopotamia this way - "...another race, also of short stature and brunet traits, had been evolving features distinctive of itself. In the course of ages those features of cranium and face to which I have repeatedly referred as "Armenoid" were gradually assumed, as well as another trait peculiarly distinctive of this group of peoples, the long beard, which forms perhaps the most obvious contrast between this population and the "Brown Race"
Where the original home of the "Long-bearded Race" was is not certain, It is highly probable that theri area of characterization was in Russian Turkestan,..."

---

^^^^^
Elliot Smith, The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilization, 1923
(dana's real up to date)

page 79 of the same book:

"Within recent years many scholars have advocated that there is a large element of Negro in the composition of Proto-Egyptian population, and Ripley, apparently as a result of a misunderstanding of Sergei's views, boldly states that the Egyptians and the whole Mediterranean race are descendants of Negros!
There can be no doubt that in respect of many features the Brown and Black Races present many points of similarity. Some of these resemblances are no doubt due to the fact that both peoples retain many traits common to them and primitive man; but other points of likeness cannot be explained in this manner. That there is no close affinity between these two races is shown by an analysis and comparison of the intimate structure of the bodies of representative individuals. In the texture of bone, the architecture of the skull, the nature of the asymmetry of the body and the character of the variations- in these and many other respects there is evidence of the profound gap that separates the Negro from the rest of mankind, including Egyptian."

dana, you didn't want to go there

---

There is no such thing as a Negro snaky even for Smith it simply is a word for any black type that wasn't closely related to the Woodabe, Oromo, Tigrai, Beja and other black people with symmetrical faces.

Smith claimed Cushites were "the brown race" but of course we all know differently now don't we.




Oromo Ethiopians (formerly called Galla whom Smith said Ripley mistakenly thought were "descendants of Negroes"?!)

Otherwise known as the "Brown race" that occupied Europe and built megaliths there according to Smith as oopposed to "the black race"?!

If these are not black people then neither are there any in America.


Of course I'm going there - "The family likeness between present day populations of East Africaa and Egypt and the ancient Neolithic inhabitants of the British Isles and Mediterranean was such that the 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…” p. 58 -59 GRAFTON ELLIOT SMITH


“the physical characteristics of the present day Nubian, Beja, Danakil, Galla, and Somali populations are if we leave out of account the alien negro and Semitic traits…are an obvious token of their undoubted kinship with the proto-Egyptians.” . Found on page 75 in The Ancient Egyptians and the Origin of Civilization (London/New York, Harper & Brothers) 1911.

Loring Brace basically says the same thing 100 years later.

That is why the Stone Henge megalithic site turned out to be a tradition from of the early Nabta Playa site .
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^example of back peddling,

stop it dana, pt II
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
Let's not change the subject Your Snakiness, actually I just know you want this information out as much as I do but you just have your doubts about it.


The latest anthropological studies show what I have been saying to you and Mikey about the Persian population and the change after the Achaemenid period to modern Iranic types.
"this study suggests that the Himrin population was relatively dolichocranic and generally unaltered until the Parthian period as in southern Mesopotamia (Keith, 1927; Ehrich, 1939; Swindler, 1956), but sometime in or after the Parthian period a more brachycranic population came into this northern Mesopotamian area and craniofacial characteristics within the inhabitants in this area probably became more diverse, as preliminarily suggested by Ishida and Wada (1981) and Wada (1986)... Furthermore, this study depicts the dolichocranic population as tending to have a relatively lower orbit and broader (lower) nose, and vice versa in the brachycranic population. These results are consistent with the findings of Wada (1986), indicating that the present morphometric analysis successfully extracted the morphological characteristics derived from conventional craniometry." Naomichi Ogihara, Hariyuki Makishima, Hidemi Ishida, authors of "Geometric morphometric study of temporal variations in human crania excavated from the Himrin Basin and neighboring areas, northern Iraq",

Anthropological Science
Vol. 117 (2009) , No. 1 pp.9-17

I guess East Asian scholars are tired of European BS about Aryans too.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
There is no escape no where to run and no where to hide.

This is no doubt the end of the age of Eurowackys.lol!
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
There is no escape no where to run and no where to hide.

This is no doubt the end of the age of Eurowackys.lol!

---

where are the stunning artifacts ?
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
The stunning artifacts are found in the rock art, skeletons and crania, mummies, megaliths and mounds, ziggurats and pyramids and almost any written script and element of civilization you may see existent before 2000BC.

That should suffice and is usually enough to stun anybody.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
Henri Frankfort spoke of the problem in resolving who the Sumerians were - "Following D. Buxton (1925) he noted that the original Mesopotamian population was characterized by the dolichocephaly and supposedly brachcycephalic Mediterraneans (as represented in art) never became a dominating race...although the Mesopotamian population in Earl Dynastic period was composed of many races...This racial motif would become one of important arguments in the later history of the "Sumerian problem". From "Physical Anthropology and the Sumerian Problem", Arkadiusz Soltysiak Studies in Historical Anthropology" 4:2004[2006], pp. 145–158.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
The stunning artifacts are found in the rock art, skeletons and crania, mummies, megaliths and mounds, ziggurats and pyramids and almost any written script and element of civilization you may see existent before 2000BC.

That should suffice and is usually enough to stun anybody.

---

you mean like this:


Mesopotamia, Mari, (Middle Euphrates): Temple of Ishtar, around 2400 BCE , Early Dynastic Period, Ebih-Il, the Superintendent of Mari, statuette, alabaster, Louvre




The statues found at the Abu Temple in Tell Asmar from c. 2700 BCE




Stone Sculpture of a Sumerian Priest - AM.0096
Origin: Levant
Circa: 3000 BC to 2500 BC
Dimensions: 8" (20.3cm) high
Collection: Near Eastern
Medium: Stone
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


King Gudea

.
Note the different hands clasp of the Sumerian above and the Gutian below.


‘





Gutian
 

---

Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
 
Is this thread about Natufians or Sumerians?
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:
Is this thread about Natufians or Sumerians?

---

The Natufians got played out we on Sumerians now.
(some say "same thing)


Gudea, King of Lagash, diorite, Neo-Sumerian, c. 2,100 B.C.


Statue of Gudea, King of Lagash 2141-2122 BCE
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:
Is this thread about Natufians or Sumerians?

---

The Natufians got played out we on Sumerians now.
(some say "same thing)


Gudea, King of Lagash, diorite, Neo-Sumerian, c. 2,100 B.C.


Statue of Gudea, King of Lagash 2141-2122 BCE

---

These statues are not the originals.




Note the Gutian handshake given the fake statues above.In the Gutian handshake the figers go across the hand.

In the Sumerian handshake the fingers come from under the hand.






King Gudea



.

.
 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:
Is this thread about Natufians or Sumerians?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
Dr. Winters is on another one of his spam rants.

---

Is there a reason you use these poor quality reproductions?

Below front view of Statue N, Gudea



c.2150 BCE, made of Diorite Gudea, ruler of the city of Lagash, Twenty-seven statues of Gudea have been discovered thusfar, this particular one referred to as Statue N, tip of nose broken off

_______________________________________________________

this:


is the obviously the exact same sculpture as this below:






the latter is just a poor reproduction
-hand position and everything else the same sculpture at a different angle

_____________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________________^^^^your pic, same facial features
Gudea statue, diorite,
Neo-Sumerian, c. 2,100 B.C.
(Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York):

this is authentic also with the same hand position as previous you have no evidence that it's not.

_____________________________________________

The "Sumerian handshake" is something you made up

___________________________________________



Seating diorite statue of Gudea, prince of Lagash, dedicated to the god Ningishzida, c. 2120 BC (neo-Sumerian period). Excavated in Telloh (ancient Girsu), Iraq
Louvre Museum, Paris, France
similar but a different sculpture to previous Metropolitan Museum piece
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
Actually Gudea is probably a good representation of the gracile Ethiopic people of the Sumerian civilization while the Northern guy from Mari is obviously dressed in the same way as the Eblaites of the same period.

The sculptures of the bearded people are traceable to the Diyala region of the brachycephals and it is questionable or rather doubtful whether these people were the original Sumerians who claimed origin from Magan. They certainly had nothing to do with the building of Ur and Eridu early Ziggurats etc. and the hallmarks of early Mesopotamian civilization. Hence the "Sumerian problem" lingers on.

All that can be said is that the bearded that in a certain period they became dominant in certain towns and had a penchant for portraying themselves in sculpture as in the early Ghassul culture where two separate populations one brachycephalic and one dolichocephalic appear.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
The Diyala sites of Tell Asmar (Eshnunna) are found in the Diyala plains. "Much of the perceived character of the early dynasties" of Sumer "is based on data from these towns though ironically they were probably relatively peripheral sites." (A Dictionary of Archeology by Ian Shaw and Robert Jamison p. 202.)

These people are also not representative of the bulk of the dolichocephalic Sumerian population (as probably represented by Gudea) of the same period. Hence the "Sumerian problem" lingers on.

Again early archeologists stated - "it should be stressed that there is a marked discrepancty between the evidence of the cemetaries uncovered in Sumer and the appearance of the historic Sumerians depicted on the monuments. For it has been repeatedly observed that the monumental representations of the Sumerians point for the most part to pronounced roundheads.” Oriental and Biblical Studies collected writings of E.A. Sspeiser 1967

"It is now generally accepted that in the Neolithic and early metal ages about 8th to 3rd millennia BC the vast region of Western Asia with its extensions up to the Niles and Indus was occupied by what may be called a black race with its local variations like Proto-Mediterranean, Mediterranean and Hamite. This race is characterized by blackish brown complexion, long head , long straight and narrow face..." K. Lognathan, 2003

Look at it this way - just as in America and Europe there are certain towns inhabited and governed by minorities there are similarly peoples like the bearded ones found in ancient towns peripheral to the Sumerian civilization.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
Actually Gudea is probably a good representation of the gracile Ethiopic people of the Sumerian civilization

---

Gudea

why?
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
Actually Gudea is probably a good representation of the gracile Ethiopic people of the Sumerian civilization

---

Gudea

why?

---

Because Gudea really looked like the statue below



 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

Why not?


We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.

Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Fake





Real






King Gudea.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

Why not?


We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.

Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.

---

Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).

You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.




Gutian

Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.

.

.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
Actually Gudea is probably a good representation of the gracile Ethiopic people of the Sumerian civilization

---

Gudea

why?

---

Because Gudea really looked like the statue below

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

Why not?


We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.

Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.

---

Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).

You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.




Gutian

Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.

.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hammer:
that the sumerians were blacks from anyplace is an outlandish claim without a scrap of supportive evidence. I have heard some really nutty things on this board but this one is near the top of the list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

Why not?


We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.

Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.

---

Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).

You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.




Gutian

Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.

.

.

---

I spent most of my time at the library at the University of Chicago Oriental Museum. That is where I first saw the original Tjehenu i.e. Fulani above the front entrance which I am told has been taking down and sold at auction.

What makes you call them Gutian. I do know these people from the Diyala plains made a lot of art pieces, and that they were the brachycephals and thus not the original inhabitants of Sumer or Akkad, but what makes you so sure they are Guti as opposed to some other early Mesopotamian. Which literature do you suggest one read on th Guti?

If this man above is Ebih-Il of Mari why are you saying he is a Guti? I know they are often dressed liked the Semitic-speaking Eblaites so of course these epeople were adopting the languages of the regions they lived in.

Some people think the name Guti was teh early name for the Kurds. It is kind of curious that no Mesopotamian sites post pictures of the Guti. lol!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

As a practical matter:

The average April to September temperature in Iraq is 110 degrees; with an average UV index of 10. If you know of a group of bare-backed White farmers who could survive in that, please tell me who they are. (Lioness, I fully expect you to say that they imported Blacks for farming, it's okay, I know you can't help it).


http://www.weather2travel.com/whentotravel/iraq/baghdad.php#searchagain [/QB]

---

would this guy have been able to do it?




 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

Why not?


We know dolichocephalic dark, brown "Mediterraneans" were the predominant people of Lagash, prior to the Guti. Gudea is always represented beardless or not hairsute and obviously had very short woolly or curly hair.

Frankly - it is my opinion there may just be some truth to Clyde's claim the bearded people, large nosed people date from the Gutian period or are ethnic Guti. I'm just waiting for some evidence that shows this.

---

Read the literature on Gutians. I wish you were near the Oriental Institute in Chicago they have a fine library (Reading Room).

You have to also remember that none of the Gutian rulers of Lagash are mentioned in Sumerian King list.




Gutian
Gutians, like their European counterparts usually make a lot of art pieces and archaeologists use these Gutian pieces to represent Sumerians--to maintain the lie Black and African people have no ancient history.

.

.

---

I spent most of my time at the library at the University of Chicago Oriental Museum. That is where I first saw the original Tjehenu i.e. Fulani above the front entrance which I am told has been taking down and sold at auction.

What makes you call them Gutian. I do know these people from the Diyala plains made a lot of art pieces, and that they were the brachycephals and thus not the original inhabitants of Sumer or Akkad, but what makes you so sure they are Guti as opposed to some other early Mesopotamian. Which literature do you suggest one read on th Guti?

If this man above is Ebih-Il of Mari why are you saying he is a Guti? I know they are often dressed liked the Semitic-speaking Eblaites so of course these epeople were adopting the languages of the regions they lived in.

Some people think the name Guti was teh early name for the Kurds. It is kind of curious that no Mesopotamian sites post pictures of the Guti. lol!

---

I identify this figure as a Gutian, because he wears the same outfit as the people in the Lagash art related to the Gutian period. In fact, most of the alleged Sumerian artifacts published in most books relate to the Gutian period at Lagash.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
If that is true that is quite interesting and explains why the Sumerian problem has existed for so long. I think early archeologists probably already knew these people probably were not the Sumerians as indicated by the fact that Samuel Kramer considered them small and dark brown people like the Shihu of Bahrein and Oman.

---

but Mike said:




 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Lioness - In answer to your question: could this mixed-race Black/Turk man work his fields bare-backed like the ancient Sumerians.

I would have to answer NO!
I know of nowhere on Earth, where White or near-White people, can day-in, day-out, work their fields bare-backed in the Summer - including northern areas.





You will notice that this Iraq farmer is covered head-to-toe.



 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
[QB] Lioness - In answer to your question: could this mixed-race Black/Turk man work his fields bare-backed like the ancient Sumerians.

I would have to answer NO!
I know of nowhere on Earth, where White or near-White people, can day-in, day-out, work their fields bare-backed in the Summer - including northern areas.

---

then how do you explain someone looking like this



being a similar skin darkness level to the people below:



 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^I can explain that very easily Lioness;

The tomb paintings in Egypt have been repainted - Being the intelligent person that you are (mumf) I know that you didn't really think that a 4 thousand year-old painting, would really be in such perfect condition.

This is the original coloring of those tomb paintings.



 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Mike Teach On......

.
 

---

Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
^I can explain that very easily Lioness;

The tomb paintings in Egypt have been repainted - Being the intelligent person that you are (mumf) I know that you didn't really think that a 4 thousand year-old painting, would really be in such perfect condition.

This is the original coloring of those tomb paintings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
^Haha - Back to troll mode eh?
Can't refute anything, so you turn to the trolls old standby, for those times when even the most accomplished idiot of a troll is speechless. "What you talking bout Willis". Ha ha ha ha

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
dana marniche - You really need to better vet the sources that you use. The world is full of crack-pots and you just quoted one.

In the future, may I suggest that when you see the word "prognathous" associated with Black people, you run away from that source, because it will surely be racist nonsense.

(An unsettling observation - for some reason, your sources often use that term).

You might also want to look-up the technical terms that they use. In this case you would have found that the term "platyrrhine" (which he spelled incorrectly) refers to a "Broad-Nosed" Monkey. Your source is a scientist - No: A racist ass-hole - Yes! I believe he is a Sand Nigger, but I could not find his Bio. He is not exactly famous.

---

Please stop insulting people when you are writing to me. Now which crackpot are you talking about.

I pick sources using the word "prognathous" because that is the one word you will rarely see European "scholarship" associating with people of modern European ancestry.

I don't know if you are a person that should be making calling people crackposts and making suggestions to anyone let alone me Michael - with all the hypocrisy in your posts. I am well aware of how anthropologists, use the term platyrrhine and orthagnathic in anthropology having had that AS MY COURSE OF STUDY both academic and independent.

Furthermore - if famous is part of your criteria for "vetting" academics or them being modern Middle Easterner you are really out of it.

No thank you for your advice, Michael.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
What does any of this have to do with Natufians??

What was the argument between Kalonji and Mind about again? It's been a while and I haven't had time to follow all of it.

By the way, to Hammer: The early Sumerian remains have been described as "negroid" and especially "Australoid" similar in appearance to blacks of India..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

---

Where is that guy from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
dana marniche - You really need to better vet the sources that you use. The world is full of crack-pots and you just quoted one.

In the future, may I suggest that when you see the word "prognathous" associated with Black people, you run away from that source, because it will surely be racist nonsense.

(An unsettling observation - for some reason, your sources often use that term).

You might also want to look-up the technical terms that they use. In this case you would have found that the term "platyrrhine" (which he spelled incorrectly) refers to a "Broad-Nosed" Monkey. Your source is a scientist - No: A racist ass-hole - Yes! I believe he is a Sand Nigger, but I could not find his Bio. He is not exactly famous.

---

Please stop insulting people when you are writing to me. Now which crackpot are you talking about.

I pick sources using the word "prognathous" because that is the one word you will rarely see European "scholarship" associating with people of modern European ancestry.

I don't know if you are a person that should be making calling people crackposts and making suggestions to anyone let alone me Michael - with all the hypocrisy in your posts. I am well aware of how anthropologists, use the term platyrrhine and orthagnathic in anthropology having had that AS MY COURSE OF STUDY both academic and independent.

Furthermore - if famous is part of your criteria for "vetting" academics or them being modern Middle Easterner you are really out of it.

No thank you for your advice, Michael.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike111:
[qb]

---

Dana, just take it with a grain of salt.
Mikey is known for disliking any features that set Africans apart from other populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

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."

---

I guess I misunderstood you then. What did you mean with the part about West/Central Africans?
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
It is Brace that links the findings of the Natufian crania with Benin/Dahomey, etc.

I'm trying to figure out how that linkage was present when he and others say the North African Mesolithic (Mechta Afalou and Capsian etc.) and Neolithic (Naqqada) crania showed little connection with West African types and direct linkage to east Africans.

I am trying to figure out whether it was the Mushabian or the early Kebarans that were originally linked with West and central African types.

We can also ask in fact if the latter were in any way derived from the Natufians. I don't think physical anthropologists have sufficiently answered these questions.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Kalonji - I am just trying to educate ignorant people to the error of their ways.

Take you for instance: can YOU demonstrate a propensity toward prognathism by ANY group of Black people?
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


dana I don't see the match, Gudea looks like some short stubby cold adapted dude but Marcus from Ethiopia looks like one of those tall and slender elongated types.

He's a fine ass North African Caucasoid, I mean negroid
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^He he - Nice jab lioness. As long as you girls understand that what you are doing is strictly for laughs, then there is no problem with me. I understand that girls just want to have fun.

As a matter of fact, I at times, envy your innocent simplicity. In your simple world, everything is just as it seems: Those perfect and vibrant tomb paints are just as the ancient Egyptians made them four thousand years ago.

However in the complicated world of Men, we have to understand that when a tomb is closed for renovation, it means just that RENOVATION. And how it looks when work is finished, is totally dependent on how racist the renovators were.

The reason for that dear girl, is because this is what four thousand year-old tombs REALLY look like! (Please note the skin color).















 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Again, I thought the topic was Natufians not Egyptians or Sumerians or Gutians...

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lyinass:

He's a fine ass North African Caucasoid, I mean negroid

---

Freudian slip, or stupid joke. Either way it should occur to you that there is no such thing as "caucasoid" let alone a North African one, and for the obvious reasons.



Chef Marcus Samuelsson above is originally from Ethiopia which is in Sub-Saharan Africa NOT North Africa. Regardless, his features called "caucasoid" which are shared by many populations around the globe have NOTHING to do with the Caucasus or Europe. Thus "caucasoid" features or race is non-existent.

Speaking of which, even Western anthropologists admit that the ancient Egyptians in physical appearance are no different from Ethiopians and judging by Mike's pictures of Ramses above, Ramses likely resembled Marcus.

Here is an Egyptian man from rural Giza who also shares such features.


 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Djehuti - Don't be mean to the girls, educate them!

lioness, this is the picture that you posted of the Tomb of Sennedjem.




.

But this is what the tomb looked like when it was first discovered in 1886.


Painting of Thoth



Some funerary objects from the tomb:
Mummy mask of Khonsu, son of Sennedjem.



And from those humble beginnings, we get all of these perfect paintings!

Funny thing though, Sennedjem's complexion seems to keep changing, depending on the source of the picture. I wonder why that is?

Would you girls care to venture a guess?








 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Nice pics of other parts of Sennedjem's tomb. The other parts that are not commonly shown, but...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

the Tomb of Sennedjem.

this is what the tomb looked like when it was first discovered in 1886.


Painting of Thoth



And from those humble beginnings, we get all of these perfect paintings!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
It's commonly claimed on this forum that the Natufians of Mesolithic Southwest Asia were a black people of African descent. I don't doubt that they may have had African ancestry, but this paper by Trenton Holliday reports that, while the first modern humans to migrate to Southwest Asia from Africa were tropically adapted, their Natufian descendants became cold-adapted. From the paper:

quote:

---

Natufians also exhibit a somewhat cold-adapted physique, albeit not as extreme as the Neandertals.

---

This challenges the belief that the Natufians were black, for if these people were really tropically adapted like blacks, why don't their limb proportions show it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Djehuti - Don't be mean to the girls, educate them!

lioness, this is the picture that you posted of the Tomb of Sennedjem.




.

But this is what the tomb looked like when it was first discovered in 1886.


Painting of Thoth



Some funerary objects from the tomb:
Mummy mask of Khonsu, son of Sennedjem.



And from those humble beginnings, we get all of these perfect paintings!

Funny thing though, Sennedjem's complexion seems to keep changing, depending on the source of the picture. I wonder why that is?

Would you girls care to venture a guess?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
[IMG]dana I don't see the match, Gudea looks like some short stubby cold adapted dude but Marcus from Ethiopia looks like one of those tall and slender elongated types.

---

You forgot one thing Snaky - Gudea's representation is a sculptured figurine or statue. He's no more short and stubby than you'd find in one in the Nok culture.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
I guess no one wants to make an attempt to address some of this but I'll try one more time.

"I wonder what the relationship is between the Natufians, the large prognathic Eridu (Obeid or Ubaid) people and similarly Negroid group of the Umm an -Nar east Arabian culture.

One book by Bedrich Hrozny claimed the Ubaid/Obeid people of the Levant and Mesopotamia used Natufian skeletal markings. They must thus have been in part descended from the more robust type of Natufian people.

Umm an Nar was supposed to have a possessed similar physical type to the earlier Ubaid group in eastern Arabia.

Early people of Umm an Nar of Oman is described thusly:

“In particular the enormously large size of the upper and lower jaws and of the mastoid process. They were also tall (171-182 cm), significantly higher than modern Al-Ain inhabitants. All other measurements confirm they were evidently larger in all dimensions than today's population in the same area...The prognathism is very noticeable and the heads are a little narrower, longer, and with some projection of the forehead.” Mahmoud Y. El-Najjar, "An Anthropological Study of Skeletal Remains from Tomb A, Hili North" in AUAE 4, 1985

In addition the author adds - "The 3rd millienium cultures internal floorplans of the Umm-an-Nar tombs with those of the later Kerma royal tumuli with their Ur-style human sacrifices, etc. are intriguing...

The Umm an- Nar are comprable to earlier Obeid/ Ubaid type remains in Arabia. Descriptions are similar: the population being unusally large bodied and prognathous with platyrhine nasal formation.

Ubaid types are said to have been known in early India as well and Umm an Nar culture had some sort of trade with the Indus. "
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
[IMG]dana I don't see the match, Gudea looks like some short stubby cold adapted dude but Marcus from Ethiopia looks like one of those tall and slender elongated types.

---

You forgot one thing Snaky - Gudea's representation is a sculptured figurine or statue. He's know more short and stubby then you'd find in one of Nok culture.

---

So Gudea is Nigerian now. O.k. we'll drop the Ethiopian thing. But wait a minute he could be Mbuti
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 







 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
spam spam spam spam

---

You're in here everyday for someone who is concerned about "our West African ancestors".
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 


 

---

Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
 
did you post this somewhere?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
let's do this discussion elsewhere this is a thread for authentic Egyptian portraits

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
did you post this somewhere?

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
let's do this discussion elsewhere this is a thread for authentic Egyptian portraits

---

be consistent troll.

---

you brought up West Afrca

plus, look who's talking you don't start threads.
I have different strategies on different threads. Why be simple?
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness:
[QB] [







IMG]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4535398714_9610cff658.jpg[/IMG]







Snaky we might as well include your photo too. Since we're going for contrast here.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
[IMG]dana I don't see the match, Gudea looks like some short stubby cold adapted dude but Marcus from Ethiopia looks like one of those tall and slender elongated types.

---

You forgot one thing Snaky - Gudea's representation is a sculptured figurine or statue. He's know more short and stubby then you'd find in one of Nok culture.

---

So Gudea is Nigerian now. O.k. we'll drop the Ethiopian thing. But wait a minute he could be Mbuti

---

Like I said there are many courses in the U.S. that have Reading for context courses. Don't know what there is in Sweden though.
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
Like I said there are many courses in the U.S. that have Reading for context courses. Don't know what there is in Sweden though. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dana marniche:
Like I said there are many courses in the U.S. that have Reading for context courses. Don't know what there is in Sweden though.

---

why do you hate on Afro Swiss people?

Gudea was a goddamn white boy. Open your eyes and wake up out of your trance [/QB]

---

Afro Swiss I'd like to see that? On second thought it would be rather nice especially if they were like Gael Monfils.
 

---

Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I feel that their should be three criterion that indicates the founders of a particular civilization was African, or the result of indigenous development and creation of ancient Asian , European and American Blacks.

These criteria are:
1. Archaeological and anthropological evidence linking the Africans to a particular civilization;
2. Presence of genetically related languages; and
3. Historical evidence and social technologies invented over the past 5k years.


The archaeological evidence is clear. The River Valley civilizations of Africa and Asia were related.


The Africans who took civilization to Asia used a common black and red ware that has been found from the Sudan, across Southwest Asia and the Indian Subcontinent all the way to China (Singh 1982:xxiv) .The earliest use of this BRW was during the Amratian period (c.4000 3500 BC). The users of the BRW were usually called Kushites.

The best evidence for Africans founding the first civilizations are vessels from the IVBI workshop at Tepe Yahya (c.2100 1700 BC). The IVBI workshop vessels have a uniform shape and design. Vessels sharing this style are distributed from Egypt to Mesopotamia; and Soviet Uzbekistan, to the Indus Valley

The archaeological evidence suggest a widespread dispersal of of Proto Saharan tribes between 3800 2500 BC. This explains the common arrowheads at Harappan sites, and sites in Iran, Egypt, Minoan Crete and early Heladic Greece.

This archaeological evidence shows an African origin for the River Valley civilizations.




Henry Rawlinson used the Book of Genesis to find the identity of the Mesopotamia. He made it clear that the original inhabitants of Babylonia were represented by the name Nimrod and were represented by the family of Ham: Kushites, Egyptians and etc. This name came from the popularity among these people of hunting the leopard (Nimri). And as noted in earlier post the Egyptian and Nubian rulers always associated leopard spots with royalty, just as Siva is associated with the feline. As a result, Rawlinson used an African language Galla, to decipher the cuneiform writing.

The Sumerians and Elamites came from Africa, like the founders of the Indus Valley civilization. This is why the Elamite and Sumerian languages are closely related to African and Dravidian languages.

The Kushites when they migrated from Middle Africa to Asia continued to call themselves Kushites. This is most evident in place names and the names of gods. The Kassites, chief rulers of Iran occupied the central part of the Zagros. The Kassite god was called Kashshu, which was also the name of the people. The K-S-H, name element is also found in India. For example Kishkinthai, was the name applied to an ancient Dravidian kingdom in South India. Also it should be remembered that the Kings of Sumer, were often referred to as the " Kings of Kush".

The major Kushite tribe in Central Asia was called Kushana. The Kushan of China were styled Ta Yueh-ti or "the Great Lunar Race". Along the Salt Swamp, there was a state called Ku-Shih of Tibet. The city of K-san, was situated in the direction of Kushan, which was located in the Western part of the Gansu Province of China.




The Elamites later conquered Sumer. They called this line of Kings,he "King of Kish'.
This term has affinity to the term Kush,that was given to the Kerma dynasty, founded by the C-Group people of Kush. It is interesting to note that the Elamite language, is closely related to the African languages including Egyptian and the Dravidian languages of India.

The most important Kushite colony in Iran was ancient Elam. The Elamites called their country KHATAM or KHALTAM (Ka-taam). The capital of Khaltam which we call Susa, was called KHUZ (Ka-u-uz) by the Aryans, NIME (Ni-may) by the people of Sumer, and KUSHSHI (Cush-she) by the Elamites.In the Akkadian inscriptions the Elamites were called GIZ-BAM (the land of the bow). The ancient Chinese or Bak tribesmen which dominate China today called the Elamites KASHTI. Moreover, in the Bible the Book of Jeremiah (xlxx,35), we read "bow of Elam". It is interesting to note that both Khaltam-ti and Kashti as the name for Elam, agrees with Ta-Seti, the ancient name for Nubia located in the Meroitic Sudan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the dumb-lyngass:

---

Who is this twit fooling? As if anyone else in this forum is too stupid to make out the two black Africans above.
 

---

Posted by Whatbox (Member # 10819) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalonji:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mindovermatter:
Yea, this isn't news, it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.

---

^That didn't make sense to me.
Can you establish that the cold adapted limbs found by Trenton relate to Brace's sample that fell in between Niger congo speakers and Nubians? If not, why associate Trentons cold adapted limbs with Brace's sample?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
they were robust negroids

I love how you guys put "negoids" in quotes

That way you can use the term to make an argument. But when somebody else uses it you say the term itself is invalid

you negros are a trip and a half

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whatbox:
it can actually be smart to use defunct terms that were intended to serve the purpose of some school of thought to show precisely that they are not even of use in that way. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
still trying to flip it to make it work?

---

... and give you a compliment in the process for your (currently not so annoying) comedic style of posting and of trolling.

but yeah the idea is you show how easily the intended purpose of using a certain term can be flipped on its head, ho easily it canbe used against its self.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
One of the few interesting threads. So I will post.

What I got from the study is Europeans and other cold adapted peoples show similar traits.
1. Thick/long trunks
2. Short legs and arms
3. Large femoral indices
4. Broad hips(and flat butt). That why I can’t find a good pair of fitting jeans. LOL!
5. Hairy body
What was the nonsense Gigantic was talking about “gracile” Europeans.


---------
From. . .

Body Proportions of Circumpolar Peoples as Evidenced
From Skeletal Data: Ipiutak and Tigara (Point Hope)
Versus Kodiak Island Inuit
Trenton W. Holliday1* and Charles E. Hilton2
1Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118
2Department of Anthropology, Grinnell College, Grinnell, IA 50112-1690


Rather, all high-latitude groups, including Europeans,
evince a more cold-adapted physique, and only for
a few key traits (e.g., relative bi-iliac breadth, female relative
femoral head size) are the circumpolar groups consistently
significantly more cold-adapted than Europeans.
Thus, the major contrast in body shape is found
between Europeans and circumpolar groups on the one
hand, and tropical and, to a lesser extent, subtropical,
Africans on the other.[/b] This is an unexpected finding in
that it hints that Europeans likely experienced (and perhaps
still experience today) significant selection for a
‘‘cold-adapted’’ postcranial morphology.


ABSTRACT Given the well-documented fact that
human body proportions covary with climate (presumably
due to the action of selection), one would expect that the
Ipiutak and Tigara Inuit samples from Point Hope,
Alaska, would be characterized by an extremely coldadapted
body shape. Comparison of the Point Hope Inuit
samples to a large (n > 900) sample of European and European-
derived, African and African-derived, and Native
American skeletons (including Koniag Inuit from Kodiak
Island, Alaska) confirms that the Point Hope Inuit evince
a cold-adapted body form, but analyses also reveal some
unexpected results. For example, one might suspect that
the Point Hope samples would show a more cold-adapted
===
body form than the Koniag, given their more extreme
environment, but this is not the case. Additionally, univariate
analyses seldom show the Inuit samples to be
more cold-adapted in body shape than Europeans, and
multivariate cluster analyses that include a myriad of
body shape variables such as femoral head diameter, biiliac
breadth, and limb segment lengths fail to effectively
separate the Inuit samples from Europeans. In fact, in
terms of body shape, [b]the European and the Inuit samples
tend to be cold-adapted and tend to be separated in multivariate
space from the more tropically adapted Africans,
especially those groups from south of the Sahara. Am J
Phys Anthropol 142:287–302, 2010. V

===


Archeological/artifactual evidence suggests that foragers
in both periods exploited sea mammals (ocean currents
keep much of the coastal water ice-free throughout
the winter). However, during the Ipiutak Period, there
was far more emphasis on caribou hunting, while during
the later Tigara Period, hunters made much more frequent
use of whales (Larsen and Rainey, 1948)—

===
Body proportions of humans [and other endothermic
(i.e., ‘‘warm-blooded’’) species] have long been known to
show significant correlations with climatic variables and
their proxies.

====
Specifically, two empirically derived ecogeographical
rules, those of Bergmann (1847) and Allen
(1877), state that within a widespread endothermic species,
those in colder regions will tend to weigh more
(Bergmann’s rule) and be characterized by shorter
appendages (Allen’s rule) than their conspecifics in
warmer climes.


===
In particular, it has long been recognized
that circumpolar peoples (e.g., Inuit, Aleuts, Sa´mi) have
more foreshortened limb segments and broader trunks
and are heavier on average than populations at even the
mid-latitudes (Trinkaus, 1981; Ruff, 1994; Holliday,
1997b).

===
Note that while within each
region, males tend to have higher indices than females;
across regions, the Africans tend to have low index values
and the circumpolar groups have high index values,
with the Europeans appearing to be somewhat intermediate.


===


Likewise, the North and Sub-
Saharan African females are not significantly different
from each other, but are different from all other groups European females are significantly different from all
other groups, with significantly lower index values than
the circumpolar groups and larger values than the African
samples. Likewise, the European males have significantly
smaller femoral heads than the Tigara and significantly
larger femoral heads than the Africans.


===


Two other indices studied are the brachial (radius
length:humerus length) and crural (tibial length:femoral
length) indices. These indices assess the length of the
distal limb segment relative to its proximal counterpart
within each limb and have long been known to exhibit a
significant relationship with climatic variables, with
groups from colder climes evincing lower ratios (Coon,
1962; Badoux, 1965; Trinkaus, 1981). This seems to be
due to the fact that the length of the distal limb segment
is more developmentally labile than the proximal segment
(Jantz and Jantz, 1999; Holliday and Ruff, 2001).

===
As expected, the African
groups have high brachial indices, while the European
and circumpolar groups are characterized by lower indices.

===


Box plots for the limb length:skeletal trunk height
ratios are found in Figure 3A–D. All limb:trunk indices
show an apparent clinal distribution, with European and
circumpolar samples characterized by lower indices,
while the Africans show higher index values.

===

Note that the Nubians used in this study are
thought by some to represent an immigrant population
from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)].

=====

Arctic Circle, we would find
that they exhibit among the most extreme human body
shapes in the world—i.e., they would be characterized by
the most foreshortened limbs, the broadest pelves, and
highest femoral head to femoral length ratios of all the
groups sampled.

====


The results of our study are somewhat mixed with
regard to these hypotheses. As was found by Ruff (1994,
2002), contrasts between the circumpolar groups and
Africans are consistently significant, with Ipiutak and
Tigara males and females significantly different from the
Sub-Saharan Africans for every calculated index, the
Koniag different from the Sub-Saharan Africans for most
indices, and all three circumpolar groups showing significant
differences from the North Africans for a plurality,
if not majority of the indices calculated. Contrasts
between the circumpolar groups and the Europeans,
however, are decidedly less marked.

===

The environmental component of body proportions has
been noted for some time in experimental studies (e.g.,
Lee et al., 1969; Weaver and Ingram, 1969; Riesenfeld,
1973) in which animals raised in different climate-controlled
environments ultimately developed different body
proportions, with animals raised in the cold evincing
shorter limbs than their conspecifics (or litter mates)
raised in hot environments.

==


To make matters more complicated, climate is not the
only factor that can act on body proportions—malnutrition
is documented to lead to reduced stature, which
tends to be associated with lower limb:trunk proportions
and foreshortened distal limb segments (Tanner et al.,
1982; Jantz and Jantz, 1999).

==

Specifically, the earliest
modern humans in Europe for whom we have body
proportion data tend to show more African-like body proportions
(Holliday, 1997a), while later European modern
humans show foreshortened limbs in spite of archeological
data indicative of improved cultural buffering. This
suggests selection for shorter limbs in Late Pleistocene
Europe, although we also cannot as of yet rule out the
possibility that late Pleistocene gene flow from Neandertals
to early modern Europeans played some role in
establishing more ‘‘cold-adapted’’ limb proportions for
this latter population (Holliday, 1997a, 2006b).


===

and it is even more
surprising that these three circumpolar groups exhibit
so few body proportion differences from Europeans.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Speaking about cold-adaptations. It seems like the north Chinese/Japanese are just as cold-adapted as Europeans. Even MORE cold adpated.

Evidently they have large trunks, short stumpy legs and arms, flat broad butts. . .and of course light skin.

So they too are from the far north.

See the study I posted on ESR about Han genetic results. Many may be wondering where I was going with this when I posted it. Same for the Northern vs Southern East Indians posted on ESR.

Cleary the Ice Age impacted not only Europeans.

Question is why did the northerns eventually conquer the southern dark people. Is it agression, cunning or something else? Clearly dark Southerns were technological more advance up to about 1000BC.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
What happened in those caves?
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Speaking about cold-adaptations. It seems like the north Chinese/Japanese are just as cold-adapted as Europeans. Even MORE cold adpated.

Evidently they have large trunks, short stumpy legs and arms, flat broad butts. . .and of course light skin.

So they too are from the far north.

See the study I posted on ESR about Han genetic results. Many may be wondering where I was going with this when I posted it. Same for the Northern vs Southern East Indians posted on ESR.

Cleary the Ice Age impacted not only Europeans.

Question is why did the northerns eventually conquer the southern dark people. Is it agression, cunning or something else? Clearly dark Southerns were technological more advance up to about 1000BC.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
come on son they not rocking beards like this in Africa





Mesopotamian civilizations (Sumerian, Assyrians, Babylonians, Chaldeans and Medians) devoted great care to oiling and dressing their beards, using tongs and curling irons to create elaborate ringlets and tiered patterns.

Look below, this is not a match:


you mus be trippin

---

And the beauty of it all is, they are priests as well.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whatbox:
it can actually be smart to use defunct terms that were intended to serve the purpose of some school of thought to show precisely that they are not even of use in that way.

---

still trying to flip it to make it work? [/QB]

---

Con-coined as we speak.









 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness:
[QB]



Boys from the same region as Tut.














stature estimation;anatomical method;regression formulae;Egyptians


Abstract

Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469–514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79–123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313–324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374–384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9–4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20790/abstract


Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13


"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of neriod origin."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15804821
 

---

Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
 
^^^^your tut wood bust matches are good.

more Tuts:









he almost looks like a different person in the different renditions. The bottom one looks most finely crafted to me
 

---

Posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :