Origins of the Iberomaurusian in NW Africa: New AMS radiocarbon dating of the Middle and Later Stone Age deposits at Taforalt Cave, Morocco 2013
,
.N.E. Barton et al. Recent genetic studies based on the distribution of mtDNA of haplogroup U6 have led to subtly different theories regarding the arrival of modern human populations in North Africa. One proposes that groups of the proto-U6 lineage spread from the Near East to North Africa around 40–45 ka (thousands of years ago), followed by some degree of regional continuity. Another envisages a westward human migration from the Near East, followed by further demographic expansion at ∼22 ka centred on the Maghreb and associated with a microlithic bladelet culture known as the Iberomaurusian. In evaluating these theories, we report on the results of new work on the Middle (MSA) and Later Stone (LSA) Age deposits at Taforalt Cave in Morocco. We present 54 AMS radiocarbon dates on bone and charcoals from a sequence of late MSA and LSA occupation levels of the cave. Using Bayesian modelling we show that an MSA non-Levallois flake industry was present until ∼24.5 ka Cal BP (calibrated years before present), followed by a gap in occupation and the subsequent appearance of an LSA Iberomaurusian industry from at least 21,160 Cal BP. The new dating offers fresh light on theories of continuity versus replacement of populations as presented by the genetic evidence. We examine the implications of these data for interpreting the first appearance of the LSA in the Maghreb and providing comparisons with other dated early blade and bladelet industries in North Africa.
quote: Regular Middle Paleolithic inventories as well as Middle Paleolithic inventories of Aterian type have a long chronology in Morocco going back to MIS 6 and are interstratified in some sites. Their potential for detecting chrono-cultural patterns is low. The transition from the Middle to Upper Paleolithic, here termed Early Upper Paleolithic—at between 30 to 20 ka—remains a most enigmatic era. Scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental reconsidering of human presence. By integrating environmental data in the 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 Paleolithic deposits, possibly indicative of a very low presence of humans in Morocco. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly with the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna, and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas again shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Paleolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipaleolithic occupation. Therefore, the late glacial cultural sequence of Morocco is a good test case for analyzing the interrelationship of culture and climate change.
--Late Pleistocene Human Occupation of Northwest Africa: A Crosscheck of Chronology and Climate Change in Morocco Jörg Linstädter, Prehistoric Archaeology, Cologne University, GERMANY Josef Eiwanger, KAAK, German Archaeological Institute, GERMANY Abdessalam Mikdad, INSAP, MOROCCO Gerd-Christian Weniger, Neanderthal Museum,
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
Nice info but still waiting for the evidence of 'Eurasians' there. LOL
Son of Ra Member # 20401
posted
^LOL!
typeZeiss Member # 18859
posted
My question to people who keep up this idea that North Africa was anything other than black until relatively recently. Where is your proof? Eye witness accounts described North Africa as black up until about 1,000 AD when Ibn Hawqal says there is a white sub group of North Africans, and he believed they were originally black, which lets you know even Arabs up until 1,000 AD equated blackness with all parts of North Africa. So where do these magical Eurasians find their place in antiquity? do they appear in ancient times, disappear then magically reappear again? how does that work?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ First of all the very concept of "Caucasoid" is a false one based on cranial features like long narrow face and narrow nose etc. Any skull that exhibited such features were called "Caucasoid" even if it is found in the heart of Africa.
Many Eurocentrics will admit that so-called "Negroids" were the original inhabitants of North Africa yet they will say that during the Younger Dryas period (12,700–11,500 years ago) that caused hyper-arid conditions to prevail, North Africa became depopulated with the "Negroids" moving south while "Cuacasoids" from Eurasia moved into North Africa to replace them.
And then you have the relatively few Euronuts that are insane enough to say that "Caucasoids" were present in Africa since Pleistocene times but "Negroids" evolved only recently in say the neolithic or something. LOL
Of course the latter claim is too idiotic to address, but even the former claim is erroneous.
Son of Ra Member # 20401
posted
^^^Actually they(Eurofcks) say North Africa has been populated by Caucasoids for 30k years. AKA the paleolithic age...
posted
I obviously know the Mechta-Afalou were not Eurasian.
Quote: The extremely large skeletal samples that come from sites such as Taforalt (Fig. 8.13) and Afalou constitute an invaluable resource for understanding the makers of Iberomaurusian artefacts, and their number is unparalleled elsewhere in Africa for the early Holocene. Frequently termed Mechta-Afalou or Mechtoid, these were a skeletally robust people and definitely African in origin, though attempts, such as those of Ferembach (1985), to establish similarities with much older and rarer Aterian skeletal remains are tenuous given the immense temporal separation between the two (Close and Wendorf 1990). At the opposite end of the chronological spectrum, dental morphology does suggest connections with later Africans, including those responsible for the Capsian Industry (Irish 2000) and early mid-Holocene human remains from the western half of the Sahara (Dutour 1989), something that points to the Maghreb as one of the regions from which people recolonised the desert (MacDonald 1998). --Lawrence Barham The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology)
Swenet Member # 17303
posted
^You might want to be careful with quoting that piece, because it's not actually saying what you think it is. I say this based on sheer familiarity with Irish.
The Explorer Member # 14778
posted Frequently termed Mechta-Afalou or Mechtoid, these were a skeletally robust people and definitely African in origin, though attempts, such as those of Ferembach (1985), to establish similarities with much older and rarer Aterian skeletal remains are tenuous given the immense temporal separation between the two (Close and Wendorf 1990).
This line is of course saying what it plainly says...in English. The only way one cannot see that, is if one does not have primary school reading skills, or is stupid seriously enough to be derailed by some other klutz.
the lioness, Member # 17353
posted
.
Amun-Ra The Ultimate Member # 20039
posted
It would be important IMO to also have the Y-DNA analysis of those ancient Iberomaurusian remains, not just the MtDNA side. There's none as far as I know (if you have them, post them).
If we take into account the sex-biased genetic structuring and the heterogeneity of modern Berber, from the same region. It would be important to compare those with the Y-DNA analysis of those Iberomaurusian remains.
From what I recall, Ancient Iberomaurusian remains certainly seem to have some Eurasian genes in them from a very ancient time, including European ones (mtDNA) from the Iberian peninsula. Iberomaurusian culture seems to be restricted to the Maghreb/NorthWestern African region. Usually, as mentioned by archeological literature, any geographical regions are inhabited by various populations and lineages even in those times (late paleolithic, early Holocene). Iberomaurusian have been preceded by Aterian (of African origin) and succeed by Caspian (of unknown origin). As often mentioned those are rough/crude categorization, possibly hiding intra and inter population diversity and the lack of archeological research. It's still very speculative. In archeological literature, it's also not clear if there's continuity between those various ancient archeological culture and any modern descendant populations or population replacement. Although imo, Iberomaurusian seems to be related to many Berber populations.
We know Berber populations have a low nucleotide diversity (they are also almost all E-M81) and are examples of sex-biased genetic structuring. Probably the (sex biased) interbreeding of groups from different geographical origin. At the very least, one basal Eurasian (MtDNA HUV) grouping, one basal African/East African (E-M215)/E-M81) grouping. Is it the same situation with the Iberomaurusian remains? It's hard to know without the Y-DNA counterpart.
(I'm also interested to know **when** did the high level of "genetic drifting" happened (random or not random). We know Berber populations have a low nucleotide diversity and are example of sex-biased genetic structuring. There's also a high level of heterogeneity between various Berber population from different regions. With a very high level of East African basal E-M215 and a relatively high level of Eurasian basal MtDNA (HUV). So at the very least, 2 groups from different ancient origin met and interbreed with each other. There was also a strong genetic drift/founding effect. So the genetic structuring/composition we have now, was probably different at one point in the past. A founder effect before their arrival in North Africa, could explain the lack of genetic diversity. A small group of people leaving a larger group with only a fraction of the genetic diversity of the larger group. The high level of "genetic drift" could also have happened after their arrival in the Maghreb (conflicts, famine, diseases, other selective pressure, random genetic drifting, all of the above, etc). I'm not sure which one is more plausible. So for me, it's not clear if Berber lost their genetic diversity before their arrival in North Africa or afterward. Y-DNA analysis of ancient remains could help clarify that point to. )
If anything, the study of Iberomaurusian remains MtDNA in the Maghreb, seem to confirm a very ancient female biased Eurasian descendant presence (MtDNA HUV) in Africa (possibly alongside African Y-DNA presence, judging by the Berber high level of E-M81). There was probably other related or unrelated groups in the regions which will be possibly clarified with further archeological studies. The lack of archeological ventures in Africa will always limit any big picture analysis of ancient populations. Archeologists and historians speculate with the little they have, which must always be kept in mind when we try to speculate on the big picture.
posted ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)