...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Amazigh people and climate adaptation
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] [QUOTE] Iberomaurusians from Taforalt in Morocco and Afalou-Bou-Rhummel in Algeria, Nubians from Jebel Sahaba in Sudan, post-Pleistocene Capsians from Algeria and Tunisia, and a series of other samples were statistically compared using 29 discrete dental traits to help estimate diachronic local and regional affinities. Results revealed: (1) a relationship between the Iberomaurusians, particularly those from Taforalt, and later Maghreb and other North African samples, and (2) a divergence among contemporaneous Iberomaurusians and Nubian samples. Thus, some measure of long-term population continuity in the Maghreb and surrounding region is supported, whereas greater North African population heterogenity during the Late Pleistocene is implied. [/QUOTE]Supposed dental traits does not converge with the fact that said coastal northwestern specimens do not form some homogeneous cranial type, which a number of researchers had been compelled to acknowledge, despite attempts to force them into a preconceived taxonomic type(s) spanning several of some or the other of the above-mentioned. As I pointed out here before, Briggs came up with four types, three of which were described as "Mediterranean" [b]sub[/b]-types, and the remainder as a mixture of these "Mediterranean" sub-types, namely "Type A", "Type B", "Type C", and "Type D". Chamla on the other hand, came up with two [i]primary[/i] "types" and a [i]derivative[/i] type namely, the "Mectha-Afalou", the "Mediterranean" types-- the "Protomediterranean"--and the "Mechtoids", respectively. The "Mechta-Afalou" were associated with the "Ibero-Maurusian" industry, while the latter two were associated with the "Capsian" industry, with the Mechtoids being representative of the [i]Upper Capsian[/i] industry [which is interesting, considering that Chamla saw them as the "gracile" version of the "Mechta-Afalou" type, whom as noted, had been associated with [i]Ibero-Maurusian[/i] industry]. The "Mechta-Afalou" were considered to be generally more robust than the latter Capsian groups. Recalling another example, noting differences in the EpiPaleolithic and early Holocene cranial collection: [IMG]http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/7140/10yl24mcopyph9.jpg[/IMG] As we can see in the above, estimation is made that both specimens with no supposed "Negro" qualities and those with "Negro" qualities have been found in the Sudan. The same applies to the Maghreb. If these represented Europeans presumably from the Iberian region, how come we have such diversity that is far flung to the eastern portion of Africa; how come some supposedly have "Negro" like qualities about them, while others are claimed to not? Yet, how is it that despite such dichotomy, some insist that they represent a taxonomic type? And if the supposed "non-Negroid" types mentioned represented some Iberian group, why are they in of themselves also clearly varied? Moreover, where do we come across the same variety in the Iberian peninsula, presumably [i]predating[/i] the African examples, along with their [i][b]cultural[/b] precedents[/i] in Iberia? I have noticed much silence on these questions, yet still continue to come across those who speak of "Iberian" north Africans. Note, another example showing distinctions in coastal northwestern African specimens, both recent, Neolithic and EpiPaleolithic... [IMG]http://www.pnas.org/content/vol103/issue1/images/medium/zpq0520506660002.gif[/IMG] Note the positions of Cro-Magnon I, the Algerian Neolithic, the composite "Taforalt and Afalou", the recent Algerians, Tunisians, and a composite "Berber" sample. And from Brace et al. (2005)... [i][b]It is clear, however, that they[/i] [Basques] [i]do not represent a survival of the kind of craniofacial form indicated by Cro-Magnon any more than do the Canary Islanders, nor does either sample tie in with the Berbers of North Africa as has previously been claimed[/b] (37, 44-45). ... To test the analysis shown in Fig. 3, Cro-Magnon, represented by the x in Fig. 4, was removed from the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and run as a single individual. Interestingly [b]enough, Cro-Magnon is not close to any more recent sample[/b]. Clearly [b]Cro-Magnon is not the same as the Basque or Canary Island[/b] samples.[/i] [QUOTE] Essentially there was a population of Ibero Maurusians that were not related to Cushitic people of the Nile. We know that the Capsian culture is Cushitic in origin. What we have is a mixture of populations as a result on Cushitic migration into NW Africa resulting in heterogenity. Ibero-Maurusian are likely European people that took refuge in NW Africa. They mixed with Cushitic people. [/QUOTE]How did the Jebel Sahaba specimens become synonymous with "Cushitic people"? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3