Post by zarahan on Nov 16, 2010 4:27:44 GMT -5
Assorted “biodiversity” and Aryan proponents tout the study of Pinhasi et al 2004, which found: “Epipalaeolithic populations from the Natufian Levant were noticeably different to the Mesolithic populations described from the Danube Gorge, the western Mediterranean, and central Europe.”
But such “difference” is less than earth-shattering. The Natufians had extensive variability as noted by Pinhasi et al in the same study.
But such “difference” is less than earth-shattering. The Natufians had extensive variability as noted by Pinhasi et al in the same study.
“However, results of the principal components analyses for region 1 indicate an overlap in morphological variability between Natufian, C¸ atal Ho¨yu¨ k, and C¸ ayo¨nu¨ specimens...”
In short, touted study shows substantial overlap in various physical features between the Natufians and other comparison groups. It is clear then that the Natufians, while not IDENTICAL to the other groups, share many of the same diverse features. Statistical averages seeking an ‘average’ Natufian “type” obscure this variability. It is therefore not necessary for the “average” Natufian to match the “average" of the other groups. The index of overlapping variability shows that the Natufian variation is quite within the range of the other comparison groups. This undermines the attempts of “biodiversity” proponents to create a bogus Natufian “true type”, that can be discounted if there is not a perfect or “unequivocal” match someplace else. In addition, the Natufians, like the incoming Neolithic, resembled tropically adapted Africans.
Assorted “biodiversity” proponents also use a later study by Pinhasi et al 2009 (Pinhasi & Cramon-Taubadel (2009) Craniometric Data Supports Demic Diffusion Model... to imply that (a) for the Natufians to have any influence they must be involved in some sort of direct line of migration or diffusion into Europe and (b) that Pinhasi “excludes” the Natufians from any link with Europe.
In fact, the touted “Natufian killer” study does nothing of the sort, and actually undermines the “reality based” “biodiversity” claim in 4 ways:
(a) The study looks at Southwest Asian movement into Europe and does not specifically address the Natufians,
(b) Pinhasi 2004 shows overlapping variability between one of the Aceramic sites (Çayönü) and the Natufians and a wide range of overlapping variability with other Anatolian and Levant groups,
(c) it is not necessary for absolutely identical Natufian features circa 11,500 to show up in Europe 5,000+ years later (the Greek site Nea Nikomedia- circa 6,150 BCE) to “prove” Natufian relevance, and
(d) one of the touted affinity diagrams from the study actually shows the Natufians clustering with Central European Mesolithic. This latter points confirms Brace 2005 and Holiday (1999, 1997) who found that older Euros as in the Mesolithic and Neolithic, resembled today’s tropical, sub-Saharan Africans.
In any event, the incoming Neolithic to Europe, looked like tropically adapted sub-Saharan Africans. "Unequivocal" Natufian patterns are not needed. It is tropically adapted peoples that are in place in the Near East and are bringing key Neolithic technologies to Europe, in a variety of ways. Whether said tropically adapted peoples are 100% identical to the Natufians makes little difference.
In short, touted study shows substantial overlap in various physical features between the Natufians and other comparison groups. It is clear then that the Natufians, while not IDENTICAL to the other groups, share many of the same diverse features. Statistical averages seeking an ‘average’ Natufian “type” obscure this variability. It is therefore not necessary for the “average” Natufian to match the “average" of the other groups. The index of overlapping variability shows that the Natufian variation is quite within the range of the other comparison groups. This undermines the attempts of “biodiversity” proponents to create a bogus Natufian “true type”, that can be discounted if there is not a perfect or “unequivocal” match someplace else. In addition, the Natufians, like the incoming Neolithic, resembled tropically adapted Africans.
Assorted “biodiversity” proponents also use a later study by Pinhasi et al 2009 (Pinhasi & Cramon-Taubadel (2009) Craniometric Data Supports Demic Diffusion Model... to imply that (a) for the Natufians to have any influence they must be involved in some sort of direct line of migration or diffusion into Europe and (b) that Pinhasi “excludes” the Natufians from any link with Europe.
In fact, the touted “Natufian killer” study does nothing of the sort, and actually undermines the “reality based” “biodiversity” claim in 4 ways:
(a) The study looks at Southwest Asian movement into Europe and does not specifically address the Natufians,
(b) Pinhasi 2004 shows overlapping variability between one of the Aceramic sites (Çayönü) and the Natufians and a wide range of overlapping variability with other Anatolian and Levant groups,
(c) it is not necessary for absolutely identical Natufian features circa 11,500 to show up in Europe 5,000+ years later (the Greek site Nea Nikomedia- circa 6,150 BCE) to “prove” Natufian relevance, and
(d) one of the touted affinity diagrams from the study actually shows the Natufians clustering with Central European Mesolithic. This latter points confirms Brace 2005 and Holiday (1999, 1997) who found that older Euros as in the Mesolithic and Neolithic, resembled today’s tropical, sub-Saharan Africans.
In any event, the incoming Neolithic to Europe, looked like tropically adapted sub-Saharan Africans. "Unequivocal" Natufian patterns are not needed. It is tropically adapted peoples that are in place in the Near East and are bringing key Neolithic technologies to Europe, in a variety of ways. Whether said tropically adapted peoples are 100% identical to the Natufians makes little difference.