posted
Using unfamiliar names means nobody will know what you're talking about but a partial use of a known term may work.
In my opinion Ibero and Maurusian need a divorce. Iberia has absolutely nothing to do with either culture or industry in EpiPaleolithic littoral (i.e., Mediterranean) northwest Africa.
Oranian and more frequently Mouillian have tried to correct the 103 year old misnomer to no avail probably because Mouillah (the type site) and Oran are too locality specific.
That Iberomaurusian is a blatantly wrong name is not news. The Cambridge History of Africa noted as much 30 years ago. Maurusian is the best replacement term. It lacks reference to any particular site and isn't a far mental leap from the old terminology. I'll have to test if search key iberomaurusian will yield Maurusian hits.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Yes, we've discussed this several times before. Although the industry or rather derivatives are found in Iberia, it originated in Africa. It is the typical Eurocentric ruse of attaching anything European to something even if no Europeans are involved.
Tukuler Member # 19944
posted
Do you have documentation of Maurusian industry in Iberia? It's Iberian archaeological lack is the only reason why I'm against the term Iberomaurusian.
Swenet Member # 17303
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Maurusian is a suggested replacement not meant to be an apple of discord to throw up in peoples' faces. There's a separate thread to develop the concept.
It's strictly geographic in nature. Maurusian takes after Mauretania just as Ibero is after Iberia.
Afro-Asian languages are in Africa and "Asia." Indo-European tongues are in India and Europe. Afro-Americans are people of mostly African origin in America.
Can anyone name Iberian sites of Maurusian industry?
But, using your reasoning behind dropping 'Ibero' (they allegedly didn't contribute to the industry), shouldn't the 'Indo' and 'Asiatic' segments of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic clade names be removed as well?
If yes, and 'Ibero' is likewise agreed on as an inappropriate qualifier, can we then point to contributions of local pre-existing cultures to justify the 'Maurusian' segment?
Has the precise nature of the ''resemblance'' of the certain Ibero-Maurusian cultural aspects noted here been looked into by anyone on the forum?
Troll Patrol Member # 18264
posted
Newcomer in early eurafrican population ?
quote:A complete mandible of Homo erectus was discovered at the Thomas I quarry in Casablanca by a French-Moroccan team co-led by Jean-Paul Raynal, CNRS senior researcher at the PACEA(1) aboratory (CNRS/Université Bordeaux 1/ Ministry of Culture and Communication). This mandible is the oldest human fossil uncovered from scientific excavations in Morocco. The discovery will help better define northern Africa's possible role in first populating southern Europe.
A Homo erectus half-jaw had already been found at the Thomas I quarry in 1969, but it was a chance discovery and therefore with no archeological context.
This is not the case for the fossil discovered May 15, 2008, whose characteristics are very similar to those of the half-jaw found in 1969. The morphology of these remains is different from the three mandibles found at the Tighenif site in Algeria that were used, in 1963, to define the North African variety of Homo erectus, known as Homo mauritanicus, dated to 700,000 B.C.
The mandible from the Thomas I quarry was found in a layer below one where the team has previously found four human teeth (three premolars and one incisor) from Homo erectus, one of which was dated to 500,000 B.C. The human remains were grouped with carved stone tools characteristic of the Acheulian(2) civilization and numerous animal remains (baboons, gazelles, equines, bears, rhinoceroses, and elephants), as well as large numbers of small mammals, which point to a slightly older time frame. Several dating methods are being used to refine the chronology.
The Thomas I quarry in Casablanca confirms its role as one of the most important prehistoric sites for understanding the early population of northwest Africa. The excavations that CNRS and the Institut National des Sciences de l’Archéologie et du Patrimoine du Maroc have led there since 1988 are part of a French-Moroccan collaboration. They have been jointly financed by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs(3), the Department of Human Evolution at the Max Plank Institute in Leipzig (Germany), INSAP(4)(Morocco) and the Aquitaine region.
Photo 1 – Photograph of the fossil human mandible discovered May 15, 2008 at the Thomas I quarry site in Casablanca.
Photo 2 – Jean-Paul Raynal and Professor Fatima-Zohra Sbihi-Alaoui from the Institut National des Sciences de l'Archéologie et du Patrimoine (INSAP-Rabat) free the fossil mandible..fr)
Notes: 1) De la Préhistoire à l'Actuel : Culture, Environnement et Anthropologie (From Prehistory to Present day: Culture, Environment, and Anthropology) 2) Acheulians appeared in Africa around 1.5 million years ago and disappeared about 300,000 years ago, giving way to Middle Stone Age civilizations. Their material culture is characterized by the production of large stone fragments shaped into bifacial pieces and hatchets, and of large sharp-edged objects. 3) (Mission archéologique « littoral » Maroc, led by J.P. Raynal). 4) (INSAP-Rabat) which falls under the authority of the Moroccan Ministry of Cultural Affairs.
Dental Evidence from the Aterian Human Populations of Morocco
quote: This paper provides a summary of all available numerical ages from contexts of the Moroccan Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic and reviews some of the most important sites. Particular attention is paid to the so-called “Aterian”, albeit those so-labeled assemblages fail to show any geographical and chronological pattern. For this reason, this phenomenon should not be considered a distinct culture or techno-complex and is referred to hereinafter as Middle Palaeolithic of Aterian type. Whereas anatomical modern humans (AMH) are present in Northwest Africa from about 160 ka onwards, according to current research some Middle Palaeolithic inventories are more than 200 ka. This confirms that, for this period it is impossible to link human forms with artifact material. Perforated shell beads with traces of ochre documented from 80 ka onwards certainly suggest changes in human behavior.
The transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic, here termed Early Upper Palaeolithic – at between 30 and 20 ka – remains the most enigmatic era. However, the still scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental revision in the frame of any future research. By integrating environmental data in reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Palaeolithic deposits, possibly indicative of shifts in human population. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly from the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Palaeolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipalaeolithic occupation.
Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the Middle Paleolithic of North Africa
Francesco d'Erricoa,b,1, Marian Vanhaerenc, Nick Bartond, Abdeljalil Bouzouggare, Henk Mienisf, Daniel Richterg, Jean-Jacques Hubling, Shannon P. McPherrong and Pierre Lozoueth
quote:Recent investigations into the origins of symbolism indicate that personal ornaments in the form of perforated marine shell beads were used in the Near East, North Africa, and SubSaharan Africa at least 35 ka earlier than any personal ornaments in Europe.
quote:The first argues that modern cognition is unique to our species and the consequence of a genetic mutation that took place 50 ka in Africa among anatomically modern humans (AMH) (1).
Has the precise nature of the ''resemblance'' of the certain Ibero-Maurusian cultural aspects noted here been looked into by anyone on the forum?
Correction
Has the precise nature of the ''resemblance'' of certain Ibero-Maurusian cultural aspects **to Magdalenian cultural aspects** noted here been looked into by anyone on the forum?
Tukuler Member # 19944
posted
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Maurusian is a suggested replacement not meant to be an apple of discord to throw up in peoples' faces. There's a separate thread to develop the concept.
It's strictly geographic in nature. Maurusian takes after Mauretania just as Ibero is after Iberia.
Afro-Asian languages are in Africa and "Asia." Indo-European tongues are in India and Europe. Afro-Americans are people of mostly African origin in America.
Can anyone name Iberian sites of Maurusian industry?
But, using your reasoning behind dropping 'Ibero' (they allegedly didn't contribute to the industry), shouldn't the 'Indo' and 'Asiatic' segments of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic clade names be removed as well?
If yes, and 'Ibero' is likewise agreed on as an inappropriate qualifier, can we then point to contributions of local pre-existing cultures to justify the 'Maurusian' segment?
Even though this is really not my reason, Iberian non-contribution is no allegation. It's all about the industry's location. There are no Maurusian cites in Iberia.
Let's backup to the opening post reference
The Cambridge History of Africa Vol 1 The Late Palaeolithic and Epi-Palaeolithic of northern Africa Philip E. L. Smith (1982) pp 378b and 379a including note 1.
Also see UNESCO's
General History of Africa Vol 1 The Pre-history of North Africa L. Balout (1981) pp 574-576
where it says Pallary's 1909 definition is untenable due to further research precisions by Tixier, Gobert, and others that the tool kit is unique to Maghreb coast and tell and has none of the bone technology neither the personal nor mural art all typical of Spain's Magdelenian industry (eg., Altamira).
Dental mutilation, funeral monuments, cave and rock shelter cemeteries are other distinct culture features characterizing the Maurusian package per UNESCO.
Name some Iberian sites of Maurusian industry. Since there aren't any why use Ibero as part of the name of an industry that has no such location?
As Smith related, archaeologists know there's no Maurusian in Iberia nor Magdelenian in the Maghreb and though some archaeologists tried to correct the misnomer with Mouillian and Oranian it persists. Why?
I stand with the archaeologists who tried to correct Pallary's mistake. Their suggestions of Mouillian and Oranian are too locality specific. Just dropping Ibero from Maurusian is enough since much of the industry's range was once called Mauretania.
Anybody can carry on the misnomer, as has the academe, but I won't do it doesn't seem right and I don't see it done for other industries most of which are named after their type site with no indication of fallacious locations.
Has the precise nature of the ''resemblance'' of certain Ibero-Maurusian cultural aspects **to Magdalenian cultural aspects** noted here been looked into by anyone on the forum?
My problem with Kipfer's Encyclopedic Dictionary? No footnotes, no references, no field specialists.
Following up what a number of prehistorians sensed, J. Tixier's highly detailed typological analyses (Typologie de l'epipaleolithique du Maghreb Paris: AMG, 1963) was conclusive on Maurusian tool kit distinction by localities.
Shaw and Jameson's 2008 Dictionary of Archaeology tells of McBurney as early as the 1930's trying to correct Pallary's misnomer with Oranian, a term too specific for an Atlantic Morocco's Jebel Ihroud to Cap Serrat north Tunisia spanning industry, culture, and people.
A. E. Close in Cambridge Press' Stone-Age Prehistory takes a good look at the issue well worth a reading. She reasons her acceptance of the term itself just that its various definitions don't all fit. Yet no Iberian sites with Maurusian tools are in her chapter.
sentence concludes on p. 172 with "information we have, but the road from pure description to interpretation is perilous indeed."
Tukuler Member # 19944
posted
oops dupe
Swenet Member # 17303
posted
Ok
BlessedbyHorus Member # 22000
posted
This is pretty interesting discussion.
BlessedbyHorus Member # 22000
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, we've discussed this several times before. Although the industry or rather derivatives are found in Iberia, it originated in Africa. It is the typical Eurocentric ruse of attaching anything European to something even if no Europeans are involved.
I know its worthless to reply to an old post. One made from 2012, but I think the boled correlates with this:
quote:The Mesolithic–Neolithic transition in southern Iberia
Resumen: New data and a review of historiographic information from Neolithic sites of the Malaga and Algarve coasts (southern Iberian Peninsula) and from the Maghreb (North Africa) reveal the existence of a Neolithic settlement at least from 7.5 cal ka BP. The agricultural and pastoralist food producing economy of that population rapidly replaced the coastal economies of the Mesolithic populations. The timing of this population and economic turnover coincided withmajor changes in the continental and marine ecosystems, including upwelling intensity, sea-level changes and increased aridity in the Sahara and along the Iberian coast. These changes likely impacted the subsistence strategies of the Mesolithic populations along the Iberian seascapes and resulted in abandonments manifested as sedimentary hiatuses in some areas during the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition. The rapid expansion and area of dispersal of the early Neolithic traits suggest the use of marine technology. Different evidences for a Maghrebian origin for the first colonists have been summarized.
The recognition of an early North-African Neolithic influence in Southern Iberia and the Maghreb is vital for understanding the appearance and development of the Neolithic in Western Europe. Our review suggests links between climate change, resource allocation, and population turnover.
posted
100% genome coverage of six genetic male and one female Maurusians by Loosdrecht, Posth, and Haak, scientically shows Kefi's mostly one polymorphism 'sequence' HVSI flaws, omissions, and dismissal of certain African elements in comparison.
The Pleistocene North African Genomes report found no Paleolithic European gene flow into Late Pleistocene North Africans.
Team members Bouzouggar and Barton reflect this thread's observation no archaeology supports any Iberian connection.
Despite all clues mainstream academia refuses to strip Ibero from their name for LGM Maurusians.
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
quote:
The Iberomaurusian arose independently in North Africa with no presently known cultural antecedents. Its epicenter may have been in Algeria, from where it spread westwards into Morocco and east into Libya and Cyrenaica. The earliest dates for Tamar Hat and slightly 40 younger ages from Grotte des Pigeons, Taforalt and Kehf el Hammar (36), and much younger dates from Libya and Cyrenaica are consistent with this scenario. They imply a cultural break around 25,000 cal. yBP.
It is surprising that we observe a high proportion (36.5%) of sub-Saharan African ancestry in 596 Taforalt. First, present-day North Africans do not have as high sub-Saharan African ancestry as 597 the Taforalt individuals (Fig. 2B+S12). This may be attributed to more recent events, such as the 598 historical Arab expansion. Also, the periodic expansion of the Saharan desert played a major role 599 in limiting gene flow between North and sub-Saharan Africa throughout time. For example, a 600 previous study of ancient Egyptian genomes shows that the genetic affinity with the Near East 601 was even stronger in the first millennium BCE in Egypt (5). Importantly, our Taforalt individuals 602 predate the most recent greening of the Sahara by several millennia (84). Thus, we may speculate 603 that the sub-Saharan African ancestry in Taforalt derived from the gene pool of pre-LGM North 604 Africans, who belong to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures (10).
- Pleistocene North African genomes link Near Eastern and sub-Saharan African human pop, Krause 2018 Supplementary Materials
posted 
