...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Holliday 2013)
» 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]Originally posted by the lioness,: Abstract The Lower Nubian Epipaleolithic site of Jebel Sahaba (Sudan) was discovered in 1962. From 1962–1966, a total of 58 intentionally-buried skeletons were uncovered at the site. Diagnostic microliths indicative of the Qadan industry as well as the site's geology suggest an age of 14–12 ka for these burials. In this study, the body proportions of the Jebel Sahaba sample are compared to those of a large (max N = 731) sample of recent human skeletons from Europe, Africa, and circumpolar North America, as well as to terminal Pleistocene “Iberomaurusian” skeletons from the Algerian sites of Afalou-Bou-Rhummel and the later Capsian-associated Ain Dokhara specimen, as well as Natufian skeletons from the southern Levantine site of El Wad. Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples. Multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples. Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000, 2005) and Franciscus (1995, 2003) who, using dental, oral, and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.[/QUOTE]The abstract could prove to be misleading, if not carefully approached. I got a glimpse of this possibility when I went through the earlier publication by Trenton, on the Jebel Sahaba body proportions. If memory serves me correctly [could be fuzzy, hence my need to revisit the now lost paper], the Mesolithic north African specimens assumed their own clustering that could be delineated from those of other specimens, particularly the more recent ones, while there was noticeable overlap between specimens, even between recent tropical African and recent European samples. In simple terms, there is more here than meets the eye of a potential reader. Now dissecting parts of the Abstract: One segment says that... [i]Bivariate analyses distinguish Jebel Sahaba from European and circumpolar samples, but do not tend to segregate them from recent North or sub-Saharan African samples. [/i] But then notes that... [i]Multivariate analyses (PCA, PCO with minimum spanning tree, NJ cluster analyses) indicate that the body shape of the Jebel Sahaba humans is most similar to that of recent sub-Saharan Africans, and different from that of either the Levantine Natufians or the northwest African “Iberomaurusian” samples.[/i] Upon reading this, one might get the gratuitous impression that Natufian and northwest African "Ibero-Maurusian" series are similar, but delineated from the Jebel Sahaba series. Not so, when other reports are taken into account; take for instance, the following: [i]The [b]African Mesolithic skulls are basically dolichocranic[/b] (cranial index = 72.9 for Wadi Halfa, 70.3 for site 117, 74.5 for Taforalt, and 74.6 for Afalou) while [b]Ohalo I1 H2 is at the upper limit of mesocrany[/b] (79.4).[/i] [i]The [b]differences in calvaria shape are most clearly demonstrated by the fronto/parietal index[/b]: 72.4 for Ohalo I1 H2 and a mean value of 68.0 for Afalou.[/i] Even the curvature of the frontal bone of the crania is similar between the Mesolithic north African series, whilst distinct from a specimen from the Levant: [i]The frontal curvature index (84.8) is much lower than any of the North African populations: Taforalt = 88.3 (Ferembach, 1962), Nubia 117 = 88.0 (Anderson, 19681, Afalou = 87.6 (Briggs, 1955).[/i] - Hershkovitz et al. 1995 Furthermore, as another example... [i]The Ohalo orbits are extremely narrow (orbital index = 67.4) compared to any of the North African populations (orbital index values range from 71.1 at Jebel Sahaba 117 and Taforalt to 74.6 at Afalou). The interorbital region is wide, at 25.3 mm: the maximum width in the North African material is only 24.5 mm (Afalou; Briggs, 1955).[/i] The Mesolithic Maghrebi series clearly have more in common with the Jebel Sahaba here, than they do with the Levantine Ohalo specimen. Arensburg et al. 1995 also found that the Mesolithic Maghreb series had larger limb proportions than the Natufians; for instance, their femur size was larger comparatively. The Afalou series crural index reportedly ranged from 82.4 to 87.1, well within the tropical African range, yet the Taforalt series reported an even higher range... [i]The use of the African regression formulae is based on the crural indices of the associated Afalou skeletons, which range from 82.4 to 87.1. Nevertheless if the European regression formulae are applied, the Taforalt male mean is 179.4 cm (range : 174.3 - 182.4 cm), the Taforalt female mean is 166.0 cm (range : 150.9 - 171.1 cm), the Afalou male mean is 176.0 cm (range : 165.6 - 179.7 cm), and the Afalou female mean 167.5 cm (range :163.8 - 176.9 cm). [/i] Hershkovitz et al.'s readings put the pooled EpiPaleolithic north African series well within the tropical African ranges; an average of 78 for the brachial index, and an average of 85 for the crural! Like Robert Franciscus (1999) and Hershkovitz et al. (1995), Arensburg et al. found that the Mesolithic Maghreb series generally have wider nasal width than the Levantine groups. While the Mesolithic Maghreb series differ among themselves in the size of the clavicle, they are yet distinct from the Levantine specimens: [i]According to Boule and Vallois 12, the mean size of the clavicle in this group is 169.6 mm, with a range of 155.0 - 185.0 mm for 10 males. These measurements exceed those of Taforalt (mean = 159.3 mm for 11 males, range : 151.0 - 168.0; 12 females mean = 143.7 mm, range : 129.0 - 153.0) 13. Only six Natufian clavicles could be measured, giving dimensions between 136.0 and 148.0 mm14. The Israel Ohalo Upper Palaeolithic clavicle is 148.0 mm long.[/i] - Arensburg et al. (1995) Back to Trenton's abstract: [i]Importantly, these results corroborate those of Irish (2000, 2005) and Franciscus (1995, 2003) who, using dental, oral, and nasal morphology, found that Jebel Sahaba was most similar to recent sub-Saharan Africans, and morphologically distinct from their penecontemporaries in other parts of North Africa or the groups that succeed them in Nubia.[/i] As a matter of fact, the Mesolithic Maghebi series had nearly identical nasal breadths to the recent Bantu sample, by Franciscus' reading, which I had posted several times in recent discussions. The Bantu was the closest recent group to the Mesolithic North African series than any other recent group compared in that analysis. Franciscus' reading is similar to those reported by Arensburg et al. (1995), which turned out to be wider than that obtained for the Natufian series, while Hershkovitz et al.'s measurements also implicate wider noses in the Mesolithic north African groups than the Levantine Ohalo. Hence, Trenton's reference may have the effect of misleading a reader who is not familiar with these reports. [QUOTE]^^^^ Interesting that Ain Dokhara Capsian cluster with Africans yet they came later in the Maghreb than the Mechta-Afalou Iberomaurusian who cluster with Alaskan Eskimo groups, Koniag, Ipiutak an Tigara.[/QUOTE]Again, clarity on the traits under study is warranted, but it should be noted that the Afalou series have generally been found to have similar or close attributes with the Taforalt series, even though there are certainly peculiarities [in trends] respective to each series; as such, they have generally been pooled as a composite group, and have been found to have clearly distinct body proportions from their contemporaries like the Natufians, or even other Levantine types, like the Ohalo II H2 specimen possibly represents. How so, one might ask? The Mesolithic Maghreb series lean more towards the tropical Africans, when limb proportions are considered. Against such a backdrop, I'd caution the prospect of the Afalou clustering with the likes of Alaskan groups, which tend to be fairly "cold-adapted" by many accounts, in a limb proportions comparison. [/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