...
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] *sighs* [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [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]Can you point out to me where I said that, I can’t answer your question when you leave out the surrounding context.[/qb][/QUOTE]You know exactly what I'm talking about, how about quote me, quoting you and it will all be clear. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mindovermatter: This is what you call a fallacy, case and point, [b]I never said the Natufians were cold adapted.[/b] [/QUOTE]Correct, you said ‘’more cold adapted’’.[/qb][/QUOTE]Yea indeed I am correct, wherein you're caught making things up, huh? Perhaps you should've asked what I meant by more cold adapted. Instead of saying what I posted made no sense. Obviously you didn't (probably still don't) know the Natufians emerged from two separate groups with different identified cultures, wherein more cold adapted limbs than tropical Africans would be logical when found. The reason I said this, as explained to you, is because its pretty much well known that the Natufians emerged out of the combination of two separate cultures. One already in SW Asia, identified as Kebaran, and the Mushabians coming from Africa. From this one can conclude that limb proportions of these individuals might be intermediate, somewhat more cold adapted etc... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] And you also used Brace’s cranio-facial measurements that were based on 4 crania to say something about Natufians in general. LOL.[/qb][/QUOTE]No Kalonji, quote me saying this. This is your misinterpretation of what I said. Nowhere did I mention I was making a generalized statement about the Natufians off of Brace's samples. As noted, Natufian samples, other than Brace's have shown what one would deem "Negroid" characteristics. They are identified as Natufians due to their specific culture, which can be distinguished. And since this Natufian culture is known to have arose out of two combining ethnicities from Africa and SW Asia. My statement was logical, yes, the Natufians did show somewhat more cold adapted limbs while also clustering with what one would deem "Negroid" (Niger-Congo) and wouldn't be illogical. Ex. read Evergreens post on Zakrweski wherein I agreed. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [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]Aaaaaand that is relevant because…?[/qb][/QUOTE]Well genius, the point is as follows who would these somewhat more cold adapted Natufians align with other than mixed north Africans or sub-tropical Khoisans? It's a question asking you about what Africans you know of that display a more less tropically adapted limb proportion besides Khoisan or the Eurasian mixed north Africans. 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" (Niger-Congo) samples is purely logical, considering what we know about their origins. What we know is that Natufians arose from these two groups, Kebarans and Mushabians. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [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]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? [/qb][/QUOTE]No dunce, anyway you stated... [i]-In contrary to what you've stated, [b]Natufians did not resemble Niger Congo speakers[/b] . 4 specimens from Brace's sample did.[/i] ^^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. 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 Kalonji: [qb] [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. [/qb][/QUOTE]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: [qb] This doesn’t take the Eurasian component into account.[/qb][/QUOTE]How do you know exactly that it doesnt take the Eurasian component into account? I'll wait for this evidence... :rolleyes: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]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: [qb] 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.[/qb][/QUOTE]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: [qb] 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. [/QUOTE]^I’m curious to see if your hard headedness will push you to keep arguing over something you’ve obviously lost.[/qb][/QUOTE]Dumb dumb see above. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Really? Where have you provided evidence for this? Please specify. Remember Natufians arose late Mesolithic. So provide evidence. [/QUOTE][i]One can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism [b]appearing[/b] in Natufian [b]latest[/b] hunters.. - Larry Angel (1972)[/i] See the word ‘’appearing’’ and the word ‘’latest’’? What does it mean when something ‘’appears’’ in the ‘’latest’’ part of a phase (Natufian hunters)?[/qb][/QUOTE]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 Kalonji: [qb] [i]It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel [b]from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise[/b] has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. [/i][/qb][/QUOTE]Indeed a clear link, not a later contribution to it. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]Ok, and? I'm telling you that Africans were a main contributor to the Natufian adaptation. They weren't latecomers, as you seem to think, and have fallen short of providing evidence for. Africans introduced practices into SW. Asia of which were never used beforehand, the combination of cultures gave rise to the Natufians. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] 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.[/qb][/QUOTE]You're baffled because you're just learning. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [b]that the later Natufians[/b] were short people, the males having a mean stature of 160 cm. [b]These late Natufians[/b] represent a basically Mediterranean type with minor negroid affinities. There was, apparently, [b]a change[/b] of race [b]during the Natufian.[/b] [/QUOTE][/qb][/QUOTE]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 Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mindovermatter: Sorry, but all data on Natufians has been posted on ES for years. [/QUOTE]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. [/qb][/QUOTE]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. Provide specific evidence stating that the Natufian culture is older than the African migration into SW. Asia, I'm waiting.... [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mindovermatter: [b]Are you slow?[/b] "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]No, not slow, but you obviously are! According to that quote, Bar Yosef makes no claims about a co-creation event. [/qb][/QUOTE]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. For your inquiries read... [i]Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest. Asia: an archaeological perspective. O. BAR-YOSEF.[/i] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalonji: [qb] [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]It goes together to argue against an invisible opponent that only you seem to have words with.[/qb][/QUOTE]No, it goes against you stating that Natufian culture arose before the African migration into the Levant. Still awaiting your evidence. [/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