...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Natufians were cold-adapted
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [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]LOL there ARE different phenotypes in different areas, anything wrong with me pointing this out?[/qb][/QUOTE]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 Kalonji: [qb] 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.[/qb][/QUOTE]Where did I make this assumption? I didn't. And what do you mean by distinct phenotype? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE][i]despite evidence that Natufians arose from two different populations[/i][/QUOTE]Note that now all of a sudden, your ‘’Natufians’’ are a physical blend of features again, instead of a set of cultural features.[/qb][/QUOTE]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 Kalonji: [qb] 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.[/QUOTE]^ Note that both statements are TOTALLY incorrect.[/qb][/QUOTE]You have failed to show where the above would be incorrect, simply saying it is doesn't make it so. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE][URL=http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illinois.edu/2.1/ehret.html]From; A Conversation with Christopher Ehret Christopher Ehret, UCLA Interviewed by WHC Co-editor Tom Laichas [/URL] [i]21 WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority? Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans. This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern. Out of this, you get the Natufian people. Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago. But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people the Mushabaeans? are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges. Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well. Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East. Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread. We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Semitic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages. So, maybe, the grindstone increases how fully you use the land. This is the kind of thing we need to see more evidence for. We need to get people arguing about this. And by the way: we can reconstruct the word for "grindstone" back to the earliest stage of Afrasan. Even the Omati have it. And there are a lot of common words for using grasses and seeds.[/i] ^^To elaborate on the the itnroduction of the grind stone... [QUOTE] [i]Natufian Artifacts Artifacts found at Natufian sites include [b]grinding stones[/b] , 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.[/i] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] The sources I have provided shows the Africans immigrated later.[/qb][/QUOTE]What sources? My sources show Africans migrating into the Levant during the Mesolithic wherein the Natufian culture arose. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE][i]it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.[/i][/QUOTE]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. [/qb][/QUOTE]Actually no, I took Brace's comments, Angel's, Garrod's, Mc'cowns etc...on cranio-facial characteristics... 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 Kalonji: [qb] 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, [/qb][/QUOTE]Elaborate here please... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] you try to accuse me of ‘’trying to establish a specific Natufian phenotype’’.[/qb][/QUOTE]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 Kalonji: [qb] 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.[/qb][/QUOTE]Nope. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]As explained above I'm going off more than Brace and Trentons words on the Natufians. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] Just like for example the Badarian samples do their own talking compared to contemporary lower or upper Egyptian samples.[/qb][/QUOTE]Again, the point is Natufians were Natufians, and not a homogenous group with a specific phenotype. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE][i]it's already known that the Natufians albeit clustering phenotypically with niger-congo speakers exhibited more cold adapted limbs than their African counterparts.[/i][/QUOTE]^LOL, Natufian mulattoes with faces that resemble Niger Congo speakers and short limbs. HAHAHAHA[/qb][/QUOTE]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, no need to disqualify one set of Natufian samples from another just because they differ. They differ because they're heterogeneous. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] 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’’. [/qb][/QUOTE]Here's the thing, genetically we have evidence of a population from Africa moving into the Levant during the Mesolithic... [i]"a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation [E3b] expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant" (Underhill et al., 2001, p. 55; see also Bosch et al., 2001; Bar-Yosef, 1987) [Keita, 2005, p. 562][/i] Archaeologically we have a definitive role of establishment (due to overflow from NE Africa) of the Natufian culture.... [i]"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[/i] And above from Ehret we have linguistic evidence noting agricultural practices being introduced to southwest Asia from Africa. So where do you stand? [/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