Evergreen Writes: I'm beginning to wonder if the early Badarians were to a larger extent descndents of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures of the southern Levant. There are several reasons for this hypothesis - 1) The Badaraians like the earlier mesolithic Natufians had semi-tropically adapted limbs 2) The Badarians like the earlier mesolithic Natufians had cranio-facial morphology affinities with recent west African populations 3) Later Naqada populations had super-tropically adapted limbs, indicating a tropical African origin 4) Later Naqada populations had cranio-facial morphology affinities with recent Horn of Africa populations, perhaps representing a back-migration to the Nile Valley of E1b1b1a1b(E-V32)carrying populations from the hyper-arid Atbara region. 5) Badarians shared cultural characteristics with southern Levant and African populations 6) Late Pleistocene southern Egyptians had tropically adapted limbs like Naqada populations, yet they had cranio-facial morphology affinities with Badarian populations.
What are the pros and cons of this theory?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
For one Terminal Late Pleistocene Levantines share affinities with UP Europeans, and they don't have tropically adapted limbs, per Trenton.
However close UP Europeans and therefore Late Pleistocene Levantines may be to Africans, the Natufians that Brace, Angel and Keith distinguished from them (with ease) display more direct affinity between said Natufians and Africans. Along with this more direct cranio-facial affinity in some samples, there appeared heterogeneity in the limb proportion record and in craniofacial features in other sites (showing congregation).
We also have North African tools (Mushabian), Nile Valley grind stones, and Sudan specific Melon seeds in concordance with said phenotypic heterogeneity in the Levantine archaeological record.
This calls for distinguishing Terminal Late Pleistocene Levantines from Africans, as the rest of the Upper Paleolithic world showed similar morphology.
In point 1, are you sure you're not mistaking heterogeneity in limb proportions with being adapted to a semi tropical climate?
In point 2 you're essentially comparing Africans (immigrants) with Africans.
In point 4 you can include the Badarians as well. Sans their relatively greater prognathism and higher frequency of broad nasal indices they are indistinguishable from Naqadans.
In point 5, is the same not true for Naqadans as well?
In point 6, isn’t that a contradiction to your thesis?
In my opinion, the Badarians are descendants of long resident Saharans. This explains their less tropically adapted body plan. There is a gap in the ancient Egyptian archaeological record just prior to the Badarians, and the notion of people from the Sahara moving in around the same time.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
The following may be helpfull here:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I was just browsing a website about prehistoric Egypt when I came upon the following series of maps showing major archaeological sites dated to prehistoric times in Egypt. I find these interesting because they show the movement of peoples in Egypt over millennia. I thought I'd share the maps with the Egyptsearch community here.
100,000 BC
40,000 BC
19,000-10,000 BC
8,000-7,000 BC
6,500-5,000 BC
5,000-3,000 BC
Red dots are Paleolithic sites, while green dots are Neolithic sites.
Anything you find in these maps that is worthy of comment?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes: I'm beginning to wonder if the early Badarians were to a larger extent descndents of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures of the southern Levant. There are several reasons for this hypothesis - 1) The Badaraians like the earlier mesolithic Natufians had semi-tropically adapted limbs
What are you basing this notion of Badarians having "semi-tropical" limbs on? Pretty much all the studies that I've heard about all place AE post-cranial pattern closer to tropical African groups, reportedly including the specimens from predynastic Lower Egypt.
quote: 2) The Badarians like the earlier mesolithic Natufians had cranio-facial morphology affinities with recent west African populations
I suspect that Badarians have cranio-facial affinities with recent western Africans, but I'm not aware of their comparisons to western African specimen, save for that from Gabon [under Keita].
Comparison to the Natufians though can be misleading, because the Badarian crania when run as "unknown" did NOT have any element of the series fall into the "European" series, with a few falling into the E series, which is not surprising since the E series also contains crania with affinities to tropical African groups. Whereas the Natufians had affinities with both western Africans and certain 'Eurasian' groups.
quote: 3) Later Naqada populations had super-tropically adapted limbs, indicating a tropical African origin
No dispute here.
quote:4) Later Naqada populations had cranio-facial morphology affinities with recent Horn of Africa populations, perhaps representing a back-migration to the Nile Valley of E1b1b1a1b(E-V32)carrying populations from the hyper-arid Atbara region.
I don't know how close cranio-morphotrically the Nagada series has affinities to that of recent folks in the African Horn, but I suspect it does. I do know that they clustered closest to the Kerma series. Even so, the Nagada series is said to also have close affinities with the Badarian series...
"Badarian (8) occupies a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series by centroid values and territorial maps. The Nagada and the Kerma series are so similar that they are barely INDISTINGUISHABLE in the territorial maps; they subsume the first dynasty series in Abydos… The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly “southern”; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups…No Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the European series, and few grouped with the “E” series…Nutter (1958) found that they [the Nagada] are essentially identical to the Badarian series. The classification of crania into specific groups does NOT imply identity with those specific series, only AFFINITIES with broad patterns connoting COMMON ORIGINS..." - Keita, Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa
Ps - From the same work...
Badari and Nakada crania fall within the range of “Neolithic” Saharan and later Nubian or Kushite crania (see descriptions above; personal observation).
quote: 5) Badarians shared cultural characteristics with southern Levant and African populations
What cultural characteristics does the Badarians share with southern Levant, and under what time frames, that cannot be explained primarily by trade contact, as opposed to gene flow?
quote: 6) Late Pleistocene southern Egyptians had tropically adapted limbs like Naqada populations, yet they had cranio-facial morphology affinities with Badarian populations.
What Pliestocene specimens are you referring to here, and what is your source for this claim about affinities with Badarians?
quote: What are the pros and cons of this theory?
Cons: Lacking sources and specifics. At times, comparisons are also questionable, like say, the Badarian series likened to the Natufian series.
Pros: Contains some well-established facts like the Nagada having tropical limb proportions.
Posted by Evergreen (Member # 12192) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QUOTE]What are you basing this notion of Badarians having "semi-tropical" limbs on?
Evergreen Writes: Good point, I will rephrase to state that Badarians had limbs that were less tropically adapted than later Naqada populations.
Source:
Zakrzewski 2003
"Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations."
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QUOTE]What Pliestocene specimens are you referring to here, and what is your source for this claim about affinities with Badarians?
Evergreen Writes: Jebel Sahaba - Trenton Holliday - AAPA abstracts 2010
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
For clarification: Is Trenton the source for limb proportion comparisons between the Jebel Sahaba and the Badarian or for cranio-metry, or both?
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes: I'm beginning to wonder if the early Badarians were to a larger extent descndents of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic cultures of the southern Levant. There are several reasons for this hypothesis - 1) The Badaraians like the earlier mesolithic Natufians had semi-tropically adapted limbs 2) The Badarians like the earlier mesolithic Natufians had cranio-facial morphology affinities with recent west African populations 3) Later Naqada populations had super-tropically adapted limbs, indicating a tropical African origin 4) Later Naqada populations had cranio-facial morphology affinities with recent Horn of Africa populations, perhaps representing a back-migration to the Nile Valley of E1b1b1a1b(E-V32)carrying populations from the hyper-arid Atbara region. 5) Badarians shared cultural characteristics with southern Levant and African populations 6) Late Pleistocene southern Egyptians had tropically adapted limbs like Naqada populations, yet they had cranio-facial morphology affinities with Badarian populations.
What are the pros and cons of this theory?
The late terminal Pleistocene wet phase is "synchronous with the Natufian (Henry 1973b, 1984; Henry, Leroi-. Gourhan, and Davis 1981; H. E. Wright 1968"...i.e. Natufians ARE generally recognized as the Terminal Pleistocene people of the Levant.
"Natufians are characterized by low to medium stature, low dolichocranic (long and narrow skulls), short broad faces...marked alveolar prognathism. (... Arensburg 1973, Crognier and Dupouy-Madre 1974, Ferembach 1961a, 1977, Keith 1934, McCown 1939, Smith et.al 1984, Soliveres, 1988, Vallois 1936.)" p. 65 The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land Thomas Levy, 1998.
Pre-pottery neolithic populations and cultures of the Levant as Neolithic A and B at Tahun and Jericho were always said to have shared an affinity with the populations (taller than Badarians) in the neolithic Fayum and Merimde cultures. It is more likely the Badarian, Amratian populations had connection or evolution from the types as were represented at Mesolithic Jebel Sahaba (in Nubia) and other so-called "Mechtoid" sites as shown by the presence of many similar genetically-determined traits of crania.
Very late Mousterian Neanderthal related groups in Europe are distinguishable from both the Kebaran, Mushabian and Natufian Terminal Pleistocene groups of the Levant including the smaller gracile type at Shukbah (linked to Middle Natufian Capsian-like culture).
Kebaran or epipaleolithic (mesolithic) culture is thought to have been ancestral to early Natufian culture.
I like this Wikipedia mention: "Kebaran shows affinities with the earlier Helwan phase in the Egyptian Fayyum, and may be associated with a movement of people across the Sinai associated with the climatic warming after the Late Glacial Maxima of 20,000 BCE. Kebaran affiliated cultures spread as far as Southern Turkey."
The Kebaran is also said to be a branch of the earlier Halfan culture of the Nile in Egypt, Nubia and of the Sahara also considered part of so-called IberoMaurusian.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
^^^ WHat study is the above data from on Kebaran?
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Comparison to the Natufians though can be misleading, because the Badarian crania when run as "unknown" did NOT have any element of the series fall into the "European" series, with a few falling into the E series, which is not surprising since the E series also contains crania with affinities to tropical African groups. Whereas the Natufians had affinities with both western Africans and certain 'Eurasian' groups.
As a matter of clarity, I'm basing this directly on:
"If the late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, there was clearly a sub-Saharan African element present of **almost equal importance** as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element.” - Brace et al., 2005.
