An interesting story from the
Independent:
Scientists are investigating what may be the oldest identified race war 13,000 years after it raged on the fringes of the Sahara. French scientists working in collaboration with the British Museum have been examining dozens of skeletons, a majority of whom appear to have been killed by archers using flint-tipped arrows.
...
Parallel research over recent years has also been shedding new light as to who, in ethnic and racial terms, these victims were.
Work carried out at Liverpool John Moores University, the University of Alaska and New Orleans’ Tulane University indicates that they were part of the general sub-Saharan originating population – the ancestors of modern Black Africans.
The identity of their killers is however less easy to determine. But it is conceivable that they were people from a totally different racial and ethnic group – part of a North African/ Levantine/European people who lived around much of the Mediterranean Basin.
The two groups – although both part of our species, Homo sapiens – would have looked quite different from each other and were also almost certainly different culturally and linguistically. The sub-Saharan originating group had long limbs, relatively short torsos and projecting upper and lower jaws along with rounded foreheads and broad noses, while the North African/Levantine/European originating group had shorter limbs, longer torsos and flatter faces. Both groups were very muscular and strongly built.
42 comments:
Calling an archaic inter-population conflict a "race war" is unnecessary journalistic sensationalism. While most likely a significant factor, anthropological variety can not be regarded as the sole cause of the aggression.
With that said, it's a pretty fascinating story.
No haplogroups=BS.
The problem with the whole "race war" angle is that we don't which other population(s) were involved.
"Calling an archaic inter-population conflict a "race war" is unnecessary journalistic sensationalism".
I agree. That was my reaction when I rrad the post this morning. The evidence that the conflict involved different 'races' is actually non-existent. Quote:
"The identity of their killers is however less easy to determine. But it is conceivable ..."
And then the authors construct a theory based on a 'possibility'.
Or it could have been two groups of Sub Saharan Africans shooting at each other in Sub Saharan Africa. Seems more likely to me.
Why do they assume it was some other group with the arrows? Is it beyond possibility that Sub Saharan Africans had the technology at that time? And if so, why? Its all a bit stinky to me.
Show me a few 13 kya Mediterranean types with caved in skulls nearby and I might beleive this stereotypical fable of arrow-wielding technologically-sophisticated (European) folk from up river slaughtering poor primitive technologically deficient SS Africans armed only with clubs.
I called this awhile ago. I noticed every time I searched something in Afica a Wikipedia article would pop up from french or british sources with some obvious racist antagonization attempting to blame racism origin on middle easterners.
It's when I first started realizing that wikipedia was the most consistently bias source I've ever seen.
Perfect you guys! you nailed it!, even the little insinuation that they used little girl technology to "win"! awww how cute, ya shouldn't have :)
If anything the article ads weight to my contention that r1b alone instigated Nazi genocides, dividing brothers. precision division.
In the u.s. especially there's a very heavy "cloak" of this. It's like when El Hajj Malik El Shabazz (Malcolm x) first went to Mecca, he saw the race troubles in America had nothing to do with skin color, said the fog's so thick.
adl releases a survey saying African americans have the highest rate of anti-Semitism in u.s., at 30%!
same old story, they divert all of the blame for a groups horrific troubles that they intentionally cause directly onto their "current" opponent. (and that's what's going through the "good half" of Obama's head.)
problem is, in America allot of people know whats going on but "don't have a choice what to believe".
"Blacks are the new nazi's".
Actually the real whites in Europe have been mixing so much with the western Europeans theirs really not much left of their autosomal genetics that havnt been "effected"; I'm beginning to think from what I've seen that most European men would have looked allot more like gadaffi than not if it wasn't for that.
should this article be labeled fiction? haha, the only racism article ive ever seen from the industry! congrats, you've outdone yourselves,
the 5-eyes toying on the internet again
The description of the invaded population corresponds to that of the Nilotd type. In fact, this population was from the well-known Mesolithic site of Jebel Sahaba. The timing of the invasion (13 kya) by populations resembling modern-day North Africans/Levantines/Europeans (though somewhat more muscular) supports my theory of back-migrating E-M78 just fine.
@Annie Mouse
"Why do they assume it was some other group with the arrows? Is it beyond possibility that Sub Saharan Africans had the technology at that time?"
According to the article "certainly the northern Sudan area was a major ethnic interface between these two different groups at around this period. Indeed the remains of the North African/Levantine/European originating population group has even been found 200 miles south of Jebel Sahaba, thus suggesting that the arrow victims were slaughtered in an area where both populations operated."
There were clearly two different populations in the area 13.000 years ago, one of indigenous Nilotic origin, the other resembling modern-day robust North Africans/Levantines/Europeans (although I doubt about the resemblance with Europeans). This invading population was most likely carrying E-M78 lineages along the Nile Valley from the Levant.
"rather than they didn't like each others jaw profiles .."
I dont know if there is a English wording with jaws, but in German its "Noses", if you dont like someone for no real reason. Then you say: "Cant stand the shape of his nose. I had to knock him out."
The other often used one is translated: "Cant smell him" (what aswell means: Dont like him but cant put my finger on it, why). That one sometimes is connected to the effect that suposedly body odor of genetical incompatible people smells bad, while the odor of genetical compatible people smells good.
It's just funny that this is the only article people are calling out as having some kind of racist agenda. It's not really more sensational than half the anthropology articles today, and out of africa itself is more propaganda than reality.
The time period in question corresponds with the Epipaleolithic transition from the Ibero-Maurusian to the Capsian archaeological culture in North Africa, and the rise of the Natufian culture in the Levant.
This would coincide with the dramatic cooling and drought period of the Younger Dryas (ca. 12800 BP) which would have encouraged mass population migrations that could easily lead to genocidal conflicts between groups migrating away from areas that are less favorable and more favorable areas, similar to the conflicts in the modern African Sahel as climate change leads to an expanding Sahara desert forces mostly Muslim herders to the south into areas historically occupied by Christian/animist farmers.
Race war may be yellow journalism. But, history and prehistory are full of instances of substantial population replacement by genetically distinct populations and it would hardly be surprising if some of those replacements involved warfare that was genocidal in effect, whatever the intent of the participants may have been. And, intent is not such a stretch. The Crusades, for example, had a similar kind of motive although cloaked in a framing that emphasized religion over race.
Of course, part of what makes this particular transition so notable is that if it was one of the many instances of substantial population replacement that our population genetic makeup today suggests (with local clades of mtDNA haplogroup U6 expanding at right about that time), this happened despite the fact that both cultures were pre-Neolithic. Something else would have had to have given one an edge over the other.
The question of whether the Capsian culture arose from migration from the East, or as a new cultural phase of an indigenous population is controversial among archaeologists/anthropologists. Also at about the same time, there were similar cultural developments in East Africa, so migration from the East wouldn't necessarily have been derivative of the Natufian culture of the Levant.
There is also physical anthropology evidence of a transition at around this point of time with earlier "Mechtoid" skeletal characteristics associated with the Ibero-Maurusian culture diluted towards characteristics more typical of the Eastern Mediterranean. But, there are legitimate arguments that this is a case of convergent evolution adapting to new climate conditions (and perhaps diet) rather than due to significant but not complete population replacement.
The major problem researchers have with African prehistory is the idea that all Africans look alike. The craniometric and skeletal evidence from Africa, makes it clear that various African populations formerly arose in Africa, and made successive migrations out of Africa. These Blacks had varying physical features and hair type. There was never a monolithic Black race.
The archaeological evidence indicates that the first Black population or negro population to originate in Africa were the Australians, who left Africa during the OoA event 60kya. The next group were the Khoisan, who migrated into Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar 40-35kya and founded the Grimaldi and Aurignacian.
Numerous Sub-Saharan skeletons have been found in Europe dating to the Aurignacian and Neolithic periods ( Boule and Vallois, 1957; Diop, 1974,1981; DuBois,1941). Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man , note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons show many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.This is interesting because CL. Brace 2005. The Questionable contribution of the Neolithic to European craniofacial form found that the craniofacial features of these early European farmers and the Natufians plotted with Sub-Saharan groups (Brace, 2006) just like the Aurignacians (Boule and Vallois,1957; Winters, 2011).
The next group to exit Africa after 15kya were the proto-pgymies who may represent the Natufians . In the ancient literature the pgymies were called Anu. The Anus ruled Africa, the Americas and Eurasia until the rise of the Proto-Saharans or Kushites . The Kushites exited Africa after after 4000BC. The Kushites were the last Africans to exit Africa until the expansion of Muslims Africans from Sahara into Iberia , who founded the Moorist civilization that lasted in Spain until 1492.
The two ethnic groups who were probably engaged in war 13kya years ago may have been a conflict between the Niger-Congo speaking people who belonged to the Ounanian culture and the Anu. The Ounanian people (=Kushites =Niger -Congo-Dravidian speakers) who archaeologically are associated with arrowheads they left throughout the Sahara. The Anu were defeated by Narmar.
@ terryt
"various African populations formerly arose in Africa, and made successive migrations out of Africa".
"That doesn't fit haplogroup evidence either. All Y-DNAs outside Africa descend from just one branch within A1b2 (or BT if you prefer). That implies very strongly that just one Y-DNA line migrated out of Africa, not a series of them."
This does fit the haplogroup evidence. You forget that the origin dates for clades in the haplogroup vary. You forget that the A1b clade includes A1a,A2,A3,B,C and are which share 7 derived mutations, and 5 transitions.
As a result, multiple OoA events fit the haplogroup evidence because BT along with chromosomes C and R share A1b as a common ancestor. Moreover, some of the Y-chromosomes in Africa are older than those found in Eurasia. They include V45 and V88, which is older than M-269; and haplogroup D-E has higest frequencies in Guinea-Bissau and Nigeria--not Eurasia.
"You forget that the origin dates for clades in the haplogroup vary. You forget that the A1b clade includes A1a,A2,A3,B,C and are which share 7 derived mutations, and 5 transitions".
I notice the nomenclature you use is very dated, but how do you leap from what you say to claiming C represents a 'first exit' from Africa?
"multiple OoA events fit the haplogroup evidence because BT along with chromosomes C and R share A1b as a common ancestor".
'A common ancestor', yes. But you're leaving a huge amount of relevant evidence out. BT is now shown as 'brother' haplogroup to A1b1a and A1b1b. All haplogroups outside Africa are descended from just one branch within BT and so any relationship to A1b is irrelevant to the relationship to A1b.
"Moreover, some of the Y-chromosomes in Africa are older than those found in Eurasia".
Pretty much all of them are in the sense that Most African haplogroups split from the line that lead to BT long before any surviving Y-DNA had left Africa.
"As a result, multiple OoA events fit the haplogroup evidence because BT along with chromosomes C and R share A1b as a common ancestor".
I think I see what you're getting at. You've concluded that Y-DNAs C, D and F each left Africa independently. You apparently see C as having left first and gone to Australia. Presumably D was next and F last.
I think that scenario is very unlikely. Not one of those three haplogroups has basal representatives in Africa. Perhaps the early African branches have been replaced by E's expansion but many African-specific haplogroups have survived that expansion.
To me the B/CT split is straightforward. The two haplogroups developed at geographic extremities within BT's geographic range, although B may have remained in a more forested habitat while CT moved to more open country. That open country stretched beyond Africa and allowed members of BT to enter Eurasia. It's possible DE and CT left separately but to me even that seems unlikely. DE certainly left but E may have formed from members of DE that either returned of had never left in the first place.
@ Terry T. There are F* representatives in East Africa and the Sahel. I believe the Hirbo had a few in East Africa and the Latest study on Pastoral/Farmer Y-chrom in the Sahel had a few representatives of F*
terryt said
" It's possible DE and CT left separately but to me even that seems unlikely. DE certainly left but E may have formed from members of DE that either returned of had never left in the first place. It's possible DE and CT left separately but to me even that seems unlikely. DE certainly left but E may have formed from members of DE that either returned of had never left in the first place. "
I agree. But what we must consider is that many haplogroups had already spread across Africa before the various OoA events.
We must move away from the idea that all Africans look alike. The craniometrics and dated skeletal remains of African populations show many similarities but they also represent different populations e.g., pgymies vs Khoisan vs Bantu and etc. A good example are the negrito (negro pygmy)populations that formerly existed in the Americas and Eurasia, these pygmy groups were phenotypically identical with the pygmy groups of Central Africa, who according to the oral tradition of Niger Congo speakers formerly occupied all of West Africa. How can we explain the presence of pygmy populations on three continents unless we see their migration as the result of population movements out of Africa to other parts of the world. Moreover, no one can deny the evidence of the reconstruction of the first Americans and Europeans who appear to resemble Khoisan people.
@Unknown
The premise of the whole paper lacks any foundation.The archaeological evidence indicates that the populations in the Levant and Sahara at this time were identical.
Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa , "tropically adapted hominids" would be
represented in the archaeological history of theLavant,especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no European types in the Middle East Between 20,000-4,000BP. Moreover, we clearly see the continuity between African culture from Nubia to the Levant.
Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/538#ixzz381YiY7GQ
Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa , "tropically adapted hominids" would be
represented in the archaeological history of theLavant,especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP). Holliday also found African fauna in the area.
Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no European types in the Middle East Between 20,000-4,000BP. Moreover, we clearly see the continuity between African culture from Nubia to the Levant.
Dienekes,if this one waw the oldest, which are the more recent "race wars" in history?
The primary difficulty with assessing this 'race war' theory or the rather more plausible sounding climate change theory (discussed by Renee Friedman on the British Museum blog) is that the evidence of the date of Jebel Sahaba is minimal. There is only a single radiocarbon date, from which the 13,000 BP date in the articles come. Recent apatite radiocarbon dates (an alternative to collagen) range from 11,600-7200 BP, with the dates from bones (11-10,000 BP) being thought to be more reliable than those from teeth.
In any case, this hardly suggests that a short-lived event of any kind was responsible for this cemetery. I have suggested that this may be a special-purpose cemetery for those who died unexpectedly in some way, e.g. violently. Until we have evidence of other contemporary cemeteries it is very difficult to say how unusual this site is.
@ Dr Rob
said...
"Further to Terry T's remarks viz-a-viz Dr Clyde, not only is Dr Clyde's interpretation of the genetic evidence questionable, but even by 19th century racialist physical anthropology standards, his statements are incorrect. Australian Aborigines are not considered "Negroid", but were thought a distinct "Australioid race". His subsequent dispersion story (like others of his tid-bits on other topics) often sound more like 'folk tales' than credible scientific theory.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. D.J. Laubenfels, in Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. (Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50) said the Australians were negroes. Laubenfels, explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair . Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges .
"which are the more recent "race wars" in history?"
Israel/Palestine?
"Terry T. There are F* representatives in East Africa and the Sahel".
Are they F* or just unresolved F-derived haplogroups?
"what we must consider is that many haplogroups had already spread across Africa before the various OoA events".
For sure. But they were members of A and B. And really in effect CT is just a branch of B.
"We must move away from the idea that all Africans look alike".
I most certainly have never claimed that 'all Africans look alike'. For a start we have a huge difference between Khoi-San (or whatever you choose to call the southern Africans) and West Africans. And even during my short visit to West Africa I could generally distinguish between Wolof and Mandinke, for example. That is much more than I can do for French and English.
"A good example are the negrito (negro pygmy)populations that formerly existed in the Americas and Eurasia"
'Negritos' in America? Even the people classed as Negrito in SE Asia are now shown to be completely different groups. They are 'phenotypically identical with the pygmy groups of Central Africa' through environmental adaptation, not common ancestry.
"according to the oral tradition of Niger Congo speakers formerly occupied all of West Africa".
I would expect them to be virtually confined to the rainforest regions.
"How can we explain the presence of pygmy populations on three continents unless we see their migration as the result of population movements out of Africa to other parts of the world. Moreover, no one can deny the evidence of the reconstruction of the first Americans and Europeans who appear to resemble Khoisan people".
Now it is you who ' must move away from the idea that all Africans look alike'. Khoisan are not Pygmies.
@ Terryt. Regarding the F*. Both studies show F*. The Hirbo paper has higher resolution than the one of the Sahel. Are they really F*? Who knows. Now at least you know the possibility exists.
Knowing the diversity and what we should expect in reference to very old, rare or "extinct" lineages (Think A00 in West Africa) I would not be surprised to hit upon some rare lineages like M89* or even an elusive M168* somewhere along the rift valley and Nile Valley corridors, considering the extensive samples that are in the publication. The are also some surprising K lineages...from memory i believe K1 and K2.....A wider range of M123, a wider range and higher frequency of V22 in Nilotic speakers... a few M78*'s, some V12* in Sub Saharans etc. A bunch of surprises in that paper.
@ Dr. Clyde Winters:
Note that your reference dates from 1968, and contradicts itself:
"D.J. Laubenfels, in Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. (Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50) said the Australians were negroes".
And then:
"Laubenfels, explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair . Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair".
On that basis Australian Aborigines are certainly not 'Negroes', although Tasmanians and Papuans/Melanesians may be. But even with this last group most would have little difficulty distinguishing between them and Africans in spite of both groups having dark skin and woolly hair. Their facial features are very different.
"Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges".
Showing once more that Australian Aborigines are very different from African Negroes.
This article illustrates some of the haxards of "pop science" as dispensed to the public. Their is no evidence of an invasion by a technologically more advanced 'race'. For one thing, the first evidence of archery is from southern Africa, so it is unlikely that supposed 'invaders' from the north would have had an edge on the local people. (Nubia was known to the Egyptians as 'the Land of the Bow'.)
Moreover, historically, most violence has been intragroup rather than intergroup. In California, for instance, most 'wars' took place between factions of the same tribe. International wars are fairly new in human history.
@ Dr Rob who said
"Another case in point, your theories on the spread of Aurignacian from Northern Africa to Iberia, then the rest of Europe https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7785493&postID=799559564272638688&isPopup=true are bizarre and contrary to any credible scientific theories.
Nothing personal, I am merely highlighting some of the 'way out in left field' theories and personal agendas which some contributors appear to harbour."
This is not contrary to the credible archaeological evidence which make it clear that the Aurugnacian culture expanded west to east. In support of my proposition I wrote:
" This is false the earliest sites for Aurignacian are found in Spain. The radio carbon dates for Bugalria, i.e., the Kozarnika Cave, date back to 39-36kya.
Earlier researchers claimed that the artifactual material found at the Bacho Kiro cave, dating to 46kya was Aurignacian, but the remains that consist of a pair of fragmented human jaws, is disputed and researchers don’t know whether these were early humans Homo sapiens or Neanderthals.
The first Aurignacians in the Levant date back to 36-34kya from Ksar Akil.
The oldest Aurignacian remains come from Iberia/Spain. These sites vary in age from 41kya for the l'Arbreda Cave, and 43kya for Abric Romani, located in Catalonia, Spain.
The dates for the Aurignacian in Europe make it clear this culture spread from west to east. You can also recognize that Aurignacian appears not to have reached the Levant, until 11ky after it was established in Spain.
These dates for sites where amh were found in Western Europe make it impossible for claims of U6, M1 and etc., originating prior to 32kya in the Levant and entering Africa via a back migration 40kya.
For more information on the Aurignacian culture see:
Demidenko Y.E., Otte M. & Noiret P. (dir.) - Siuren i rock-shelter. From Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. Liège, ERAUL 129, 2012, p. 343-357.
http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/135222/1/Chapter%2018%20Europe%20Aurignacian.pdf "
I supported my statement with the "credible scientific evidence" you claim I lack. If I am wrong why don't you present evidence that Aurignacian entered western Eurasia from the east.
There is no evidence to counter the archaeological evidence so your comments are groundless.
"The Hirbo paper has higher resolution than the one of the Sahel".
Do you have a link to the paper?
"The are also some surprising K lineages...from memory i believe K1 and K2....."
That appears to be a very dated nomenclature. As far as I'm aware all the old K2, found in Africa as well as other places, has now been reclassified as T, and probably originated in India. Until recently K1, K2 and K3 were all 'eastern' haplogroups. And we now have an even more refined phylogeny
@ Terryt. Yes the Nomenclature is old because the samples are old. It still retains some good resolution though in refernce to Y-chromosome.
http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/11443/1/Hirbo_umd_0117E_11892.pdf
I would HIGHLY suggest reading it all but Page 86 is what you are looking for. There are more details and distribution maps throughout. I quickly glanced at it, there is significant F* that could be further resolved as well as M9*...and this is with M70 resolution. There is J*(xJ1,J2), Significant E-M293. Significant Pn2* which is likely part E-M329. New dates for E-V32 as well as an E-V32 subclade.
The Sahel Data is closed access. But here:
http://ethiohelix.blogspot.com/2013/03/african-sahel-ydna.html
@Dr Rob.
The dates as of last year have been somewhat re-calibrated. You can search for this quote and get the just of it :
"collagen and four skeletons from across the site were selected for bone, enamel and dentine apatite radiocarbon dating (9 samples). The results suggest that the cemetery is at least 11,600 years old, confirming this burial site belongs to the Epipaleolithic and the Qadan culture."
The sensationalism in the article regarding race war is ridiculous. Mainly because they bring up limb proportion when Sudanese and their neighbors both have limb proportions that indicate long term presence in Africa. These proportions dont have to overlap as there is variability in different groups - See:
"Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample"
Thanks for the link akb. It'll take me a while to get through it.
"there is significant F* that could be further resolved as well as M9*..."
That's my first impression. Therefore probably T which has been found reasonably common in northeast Africa, especially the Horn.
@ Dr Rob
I never said the Basque were descendants of the Berbers. Where did you get this idea from?
In your post you make it appear as if "ignoring concensus" is a terrible thing to do. Just because there is "concensus" on an issue does not make a proposition correct. You claim that I have made" hair-brained theories", this is false. I have presented abundant evidence in support of my claim from responsible archaeologists conducting research on the Aurignacian culture highligthening an Iberian--not Eastern European origin for this culture--which you have failed to falsify, and yet you make it appear that I have made up archaeological evidence.
Instead of making claims based on "concensus views" you should present counter evidence to falsify my confirmation of the spread of Aurignacian from Iberia to the Levant. If the evidence fits a particular hypothesis it is reliable and valid until the hypothesis is disconfirmed. Science is not based on "concensus". Science is based on hypothesis testing and argument. You don't just base your claim on "concensus", you present counter evidence to falsify or disconfirm the hypothesis you find invalid.
Clyde. The evidence is all there. Its called radiocarbon dating and typological analysis. But its not for me to convince you, as I don't really care what you believe, because the weight of evidence and consensus is overwhelmingly in support of a SE Europe to western Europe spread;. You're arguments are "not even wrong" because they rely on empty, non-existent evidence.
Sure, consensus can change, and nothing is 'bible'. We all know that. But I won't hold my breath for you to 'prove' your arguement, because the evidence for it is non-existent. So as I said, your 'interesting" theories certainly have a role to play - in highlighting what pseudo-science and distorted ethnocentrism can conjure !
Kind Regards
“Dr.” Rob you said “ your arguments are based on selective evidence, ignoring concensus, and what evidence you do present is weak, tangential or (often in your case) non-existent”. This is false. I support my propositions with evidence—references.
“Dr.” Rob you continue to claim that the Aurignacian civilization probably began in Southeast Europe and spread to Iberia. You are the one basing your claims “on selective evidence”, while I admit there are early dates for SouthEastern European sites you never admit that these dates are controversial because researchers don’t know if the tools were used at these sites by AMH or Neanderthals. The firm dates for Aurignacian at Eastern European sites like Bachokirian and Temnata are only for 39kya.
You claim my evidence is “non-existent” ,this is false, I have already cited papers that note the earliest radiocarbon dates for Aurignacian sites in Iberia . The oldest Aurignacian remains come from Iberia/Spain. These sites vary in age from 41kya for the l'Arbreda Cave, and 43kya for Abric Romani, located in Catalonia, Spain.
You maintain that the first AMH are believed to have entered Europe from the Southeast pobably the Levant. Yet, the first Aurignacians in the Levant date back only to 36-34kya from Ksar Akil. This is around 10,000 years later than the Iberian sites.
You have failed to explain where the AMH came from to found the Bachokirian and Temnata sites if they were not living in the Levant.
In summary, “Dr” Rob you claim an
SouthEastern European origin for Aurignacian civilization, but the archaeological evidence and radiocarbon dates supports a Iberian origin for Augrignacian culture.
@Dr. Rob
I have published an article on the Westward entry of the Aurignacian into Western Eurasian. Check it out:
Winters, C. (2014). Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned? Advances in Anthropology, 4,
124-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.43016Winters, C. (2014). Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned? Advances in Anthropology, 4,
124-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.43016
.
It's hard to tell what the oldest aurignacian is, especially with recalibrated scales. A site north of switzerland was recently claimed to be the oldest, but some iberian cave art that could be aurignacian was dated to over 50k years ago.
Asfor coming out of balkans I really doubt that's the case and don't remember that claim before now. That means it spread rapidly west but only very slowly east which is possible but seems unlikely. North africa is even more on the periphery.
The obvious is that it indeed radiates out from between france and spain. Unless some much earlier dates on significant sites show up elsewhere that almost has to be the case.
Post a Comment