Post by Noah on Sept 11, 2011 2:28:00 GMT -5
The Natufians are a group of hunter-gatherers that lived in the Levant during the Mesolithic period or Middle Stone Age. They are often credited with being among the first peoples to have actively engaged in farming practices. Consequently, they have also sometimes been seen as possible candidates for the West Asian population that later introduced agriculture to Europe during the Neolithic/New Stone Age (i.e. the so-called "Neolithic package" that also included domesticated animals, pottery, and ground and polished tools).
Regarding their morphological affinities, a few physical anthropologists over the years have suggested that Natufian skeletal remains possessed some Negroid or Sub-Saharan traits alongside more typical Eurasian ones.
For instance, Loring Brace wrote the following with regard to the Natufian skulls that he had had the chance to examine:
Although neither Brace nor most other anthropologists that have posited a Sub-Saharan element in the Natufians have suggested that that putative component was necessarily the dominant one, many Afrocentrists have concluded that the Natufians a) were Negroid; b) definitely introduced agriculture to Europe; and c) also introduced the paternal haplogroup E1b1b to Eurasia (which they insist is Negroid; see the Hamitic origin of haplogroup E thread for why that isn't so).
Needless to say, there are many problems with these claims.
First, the Natufians show few morphological ties with the later Neolithic West Asian groups that actually introduced the "Neolithic package" to Europe. They therefore are not the source Mesolithic population from which the Neolithic farmers in question descended.
Second, the main modern populations with whom the E1b1b clade is most closely associated and believed to have originated -- namely, the Hamitic peoples of North & Northeast Africa -- also show no close ties with the Natufians (see the plot here). The Natufians are thus likely not the population that introduced E1b1b to Europe either.
Lastly (and perhaps most importantly), the reason why the Natufians sometimes morphologically cluster with Sub-Saharan groups is not because they were of Negroid origin, but rather because they were at least partly of Australoid origin. We know from cranial studies like the two pictured below that Australoid populations often tend to share similar craniological attributes with Negroid peoples, though they obviously aren't closely biologically related.
This clustering pattern is due to the fact that both Australoid and Negroid peoples share a higher retention of the same archaic physical traits than do more gracilized modern human populations. A number of factors could individually or in combination be invoked to explain why this is so (e.g. long-term convergent evolution in similar though separate tropical environments; higher rates of admixture with archaic human species than other modern human populations; etc.), but that isn't the purpose of this thread.
The important point to remember is that many ancient skeletal remains that have been hastily labeled as having a "Negroid" element could just as well actually have an Australoid element (certainly a more plausible explanation in a non-African context). And this is precisely the case with the Mesolithic Natufians of the Levant:
Regarding their morphological affinities, a few physical anthropologists over the years have suggested that Natufian skeletal remains possessed some Negroid or Sub-Saharan traits alongside more typical Eurasian ones.
For instance, Loring Brace wrote the following with regard to the Natufian skulls that he had had the chance to examine:
"if the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element."
Although neither Brace nor most other anthropologists that have posited a Sub-Saharan element in the Natufians have suggested that that putative component was necessarily the dominant one, many Afrocentrists have concluded that the Natufians a) were Negroid; b) definitely introduced agriculture to Europe; and c) also introduced the paternal haplogroup E1b1b to Eurasia (which they insist is Negroid; see the Hamitic origin of haplogroup E thread for why that isn't so).
Needless to say, there are many problems with these claims.
First, the Natufians show few morphological ties with the later Neolithic West Asian groups that actually introduced the "Neolithic package" to Europe. They therefore are not the source Mesolithic population from which the Neolithic farmers in question descended.
"Analysis of morphological variability in the Near East and Europe suggests that the Epipalaeolithic populations from the Natufian Levant were noticeably different to the Mesolithic populations described from the Danube Gorge, the western Mediterranean, and central Europe. No close similarities were observed between Early Neolithic and Mesolithic European groups in any of the regions studied, with the possible exception of Mediterranean Europe. However, neither were clear affinities observed between Epipalaeolithic Near Eastern groups [Natufians] and any other Neolithic or Mesolithic groups. These results support a third scenario -- that the Epipalaeolithic population from which the first Anatolian farmers descended has yet to be discovered.... There is therefore no unequivocal evidence from biological morphometrics for local continuity between Natufian specimens and any of those from the Anatolian or Levantine PPN [Pre-Pottery Neolithic] cultures. Statistical analysis of the Levantine populations indicates no obvious biological continuity between Natufian groups and their successors -- either the first Neolithic cultures of the PPNA or subsequently between the PPNA and the PPNB."
www.ceacb.ucl.ac.uk/cultureclub/files/2004-2005/CC2004-10-07-pinhasi_pluciennik.pdf
Second, the main modern populations with whom the E1b1b clade is most closely associated and believed to have originated -- namely, the Hamitic peoples of North & Northeast Africa -- also show no close ties with the Natufians (see the plot here). The Natufians are thus likely not the population that introduced E1b1b to Europe either.
Lastly (and perhaps most importantly), the reason why the Natufians sometimes morphologically cluster with Sub-Saharan groups is not because they were of Negroid origin, but rather because they were at least partly of Australoid origin. We know from cranial studies like the two pictured below that Australoid populations often tend to share similar craniological attributes with Negroid peoples, though they obviously aren't closely biologically related.
This clustering pattern is due to the fact that both Australoid and Negroid peoples share a higher retention of the same archaic physical traits than do more gracilized modern human populations. A number of factors could individually or in combination be invoked to explain why this is so (e.g. long-term convergent evolution in similar though separate tropical environments; higher rates of admixture with archaic human species than other modern human populations; etc.), but that isn't the purpose of this thread.
The important point to remember is that many ancient skeletal remains that have been hastily labeled as having a "Negroid" element could just as well actually have an Australoid element (certainly a more plausible explanation in a non-African context). And this is precisely the case with the Mesolithic Natufians of the Levant:
"Tooth removal or other forms of dental mutilation such as filing teeth in various patterns are common in other ethnic groups; perhaps the most interesting example in this context is to be found in the ancient Natufian skulls of Palestine for not only were these "Australoid" in appearance, they had also had upper front teeth removed during life."
books.google.ca/books?id=lQ0aAAAAMAAJ&q=%22perhaps+the+most+interesting+example+in+this+context+is+to+be+found+in%22&dq=%22perhaps+the+most+interesting+example+in+this+context+is+to+be+found+in%22&hl=en&ei=z7ILTp-kDsbx0gHQ162eAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA
"The 2nd wave of migrants to enter India, around 60,000 years ago, followed a coastal route out of eastern Africa using a bare form of watercraft to cross the small span of water between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Living on a largely marine diet, a number of these nomadic hunter-gatherers stayed in the Indus and proceeded inland along river systems of the landmass. Others pressed on into Southeast Asia, eventually giving rise to the Australian Aborigines. Genetically the Proto-Australoids are associated with the mtDNA haplogroup M, the earliest lineage outside of Africa. Veddoid peoples were characterized by gracile body types, dark skin and wavy hair, broad, flat noses and fleshy, protruding lips. They had long heads with low foreheads and prominent eye ridges, thick jaws, large teeth and small chins. The Australoids laid the foundation of Indian civilization. They cultivated rice and vegetables and made sugar from sugarcane. Their languages have survived in the Central and Eastern India. At present this race includes a large number of groups of peoples stretching from Iberia to India. The characteristic type appears in late Natufian times in Palestine and may have been differentiated in the southern steppes of Northern Africa and in Asia, and spread westwards and eastwards."
books.google.ca/books?id=vRwS6FmS2g0C&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false