...
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 Kalonji: [QB] [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]^There you go again, you take different results from different studies and you amplify it over Natufians in general, instead of making each sample speak for itself. When you say, they had a somewhat cold adapted physique, I can only guess what you mean with that, but let’s assume you meant that put together, the two extremes (African and Eurasian) come out intermediate when measured. Why would you take the average of their physique, but take the extreme of their cranio facial features? That makes absolutely [b]no[/b] sense. If you say they had on average a somewhat cold adapted bodyplan, you have to do the same with their general cranio facial features, and give the average of that too. [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: (Niger-Congo) samples [b]is purely logical, [/b] considering what we know about their origins. [/QUOTE]It’s not logical at all The Lachish population is something like a déjà vu in Pharaonic times, and it can reasonably be argued that this Levantine population had the same mixed qualities, that Natufians [b]as a whole[/b] would have had. Craniofacially though, the Lachish population as a whole ceases to classify among black Africans, and they averaged craniofacially near a sample from the Maghreb. [QUOTE]Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: What we know is that Natufians arose from these two groups, Kebarans and Mushabians. [/QUOTE]No, ‘’we’’ don’t know anything. What we know is that Brace and other specifically point out that the samples with African affinity were among the latest Natufian hunters. You’re entitled to your own beliefs though. [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]YOU are the dunce. AGAIN, it has [b]NOT[/b] been demonstrated that Natufians cluster with Niger Congo speakers. Just like Nubians did NOT cluster with Europeans in the study below, but 7% did. [i]...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," (…) Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), [b]European (7.86%)[/b], Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.[/i] You are reduced to nitpicking and arguing over semantics, but I already know that desperate people do desperate things. Anyone who has read my posts in this thread knows that the only proper way to read that sentence is: [b]Natufians [/b] [i](as a whole) [/i] [b]did not resemble Niger Congo speakers.[/b] [/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