Palanth Forum
April 02, 2020, 10:05:52 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Egyptian prehistory  (Read 15972 times)
Mikey Brass
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 207



« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2009, 02:31:33 AM »

If anyone ever looks for field workers for coastal surveys there, I would love to go, it sound like great fun.

I can put you in touch with a team if you are interested in surveying for late Neolithic sites in Western Sahara.

There appears there was a thriving trade in artifacts from NWA, along with fossils and meteorites.

Quote
The dates I had for Nile mesolithic, which were via Andrew Collins citing reputable sources, was around 12,000 BCE, with microlith technologies and harvested grass type plants, a stage which came to an end and did not develop further.

Andrew Colins and reliable don't belong in the same sentence. See here (http://www.antiquityofman.com/wadi_kubbaniya.html) for an original report on Wadi Kubbaniya and also David Wengrow's book "The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC" for a good overview. You can also read Midant-Reynes's book as well.

However, Your original sentence made it sound like you believe the Nile Valley was re-populated by peoples from the East African cost 12kya; it is this which I questioned.
Logged

Best, Mikey Brass
Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Website: http://www.antiquityofman.com

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
Marc Washington
Palanth Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2009, 09:56:29 PM »

Mikey. I think that one approach showing perhaps not only the transition from the mesolithic to neolithic but from the paleolithic to the neolithic insofar as addressing the emergence of hieroglphyics might be found in the following ideas copied below from the web page following it:

With the exception of the central steala of Thera, 1700 BC, all of the above are pre-pastoral rock art throughout the ages [1 - 10] from the Ukraine [1] through Egypt [e.g. 10] is similar in that it is of black, brown, and red stick figures [3, 4, 6, 8] and populations were also red and black [see 11]. Until inscribed in rock [10] a new medium, this form was painted from Thera (centerpiece) to the Ukraine [1] where the figure slain by a buffalo lies next to a spear-thrower (showing the early sophistication of these people. Art [1 - 10] imitates reality [11, 12] and resembles the subjects [e.g. 11, 12] who apparently created it. When Egyptologists discuss the early hieroglyphics [8, 9, 10], virtually no recognition is given about the fact that hieroglyphics are not more than the continuation of the way the human body has been used to express actions [e.g. 1 - 7], thoughts, and intentions for tens of thousands of years and is a local flowering of that tradition found in the Neolithic throughout North Africa. Brown [10], red, and black stick figures in hieroglyphics existed even 25,000 years ago [1]. Hieroglphics advanced the art as rather than presenting separate pictures or a collage of activity, the early scribes presented images linerally making sentences; sentences together forming speech and thought.


http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Human.Animal.RockArt/01-17-800-00-08.html

.
.
Logged
E.P. Grondine
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2009, 10:39:51 PM »

Andrew Colins and reliable don't belong in the same sentence.

I found Collin's book "From the Ashes of Angels" to be pretty entertaining, and his citations in it were pretty good.
His "Gateway to Arlantis" relied mostly on Thor Hyerdahl's groups materials, and his map and manuscript work in it seemed okay, though I disagree with his conclusions. As I haven't looked at his "pyramid" book yet, I'll keep your warning in mind.

I can tell you about the real lunatic fringe archaeology in depth, if you'd care to know about it. You will be amazed.

I can put you in touch with a team if you are interested in surveying for late Neolithic sites in Western Sahara.

By "Western Sahara", are you talking about the region or the "country"? Do you mean southern Morocco?

I'm interested in sites along the coast, or along the former rivers, in that area around 40,000 BCE to early Neolithic, rather earlier than what these folks are looking for.  Despite my stroke, complete lack of money, and long since lapsed passport, I actually have this daydream of little walks up now dry aroyos, followed by a nice swim at the beach and sunsets hanging out drinking hot tea or coffee, smoking a tobacco hookah, and playing trac on some tiled ocean side veranda.

See here (http://www.antiquityofman.com/wadi_kubbaniya.html) for an original report on Wadi Kubbaniya and also David Wengrow's book "The Archaeology of Early Egypt: Social Transformations in North-East Africa, 10,000 to 2650 BC" for a good overview. You can also read Midant-Reynes's book as well.

Thanks, that's what I was looking for - the barley tech.

However, Your original sentence made it sound like you believe the Nile Valley was re-populated by peoples from the East African cost 12kya; it is this which I questioned.

Tech and population must always be considered separately.

I think it is possible that the barley technology may have come in from the east coast of Africa, and not the drying Sahara. In any case, I think that there was movement from the drying Sahara to the Nile valley, in response to the climate changes starting after 10,900 BCE, but I would set them later, with the cattle herders. Note the end dates for the early Nile barley tech around 10,000 BCE.

If that is not heretical enough, how about this: I think that an advanced Erectus, let us call him Heidelbergensis, left out of Africa say around 2 mya. There was a massive impact at Zamanshan 1 mya, and the western group evolved into HSN, while the eastern group evolved into HSS in SE Asia. HSS then returned to Africa along coastal margins. Out of Africa and then back again. By BOAT. That's for all HSS in Africa.

Why?

One "problem" that I face is that the Oconachee and Yuchi peoples of SE North America looked like Berbers, but with a maximum male adult height of around 5 feet.  Another "problem" is the Pedra Furada  artifacts at 35,000 BCE. Another "problem" is that folsom technology appears to have spread from the south coastal regions of North America, and an even bigger "problem" is that the spread seems to have been from the eastern trans-caribean south coastal region, in other words across the Caribbean by the islands.

PS - many of the people here took a lot of grief for speaking about pre-clovis Native Americans, and were often treated as "eccentrics". You may notice that Paul was tolerant of the clovis comet impact hypothesis when it was still a hypothesis.





 
Logged
Mikey Brass
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 207



« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2009, 03:45:52 AM »

Mikey. I think that one approach showing perhaps not only the transition from the mesolithic to neolithic but from the paleolithic to the neolithic insofar as addressing the emergence of hieroglphyics might be found in the following ideas copied below from the web page following it

Tell the owner of the website to write up his/her ideas and submit them for peer-review. I am distinctly underwhelmed by his/her nonsense and have no wish to discuss it further.
Logged

Best, Mikey Brass
Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Website: http://www.antiquityofman.com

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
Mikey Brass
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 207



« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2009, 03:58:55 AM »

I found Collin's book "From the Ashes of Angels" to be pretty entertaining, and his citations in it were pretty good.

I have read it. He mis-represents the data. I would recommend reading David Wengrow and Charles Maisels to get a more accurate feel for the raw data.

Quote
I can tell you about the real lunatic fringe archaeology in depth, if you'd care to know about it. You will be amazed.

I've been involved against pseudoscience for 13 years. I can cite the arguments in my sleep:}

Quote
By "Western Sahara", are you talking about the region or the "country"?

The country.

Quote
I'm interested in sites along the coast, or along the former rivers, in that area around 40,000 BCE to early Neolithic, rather earlier than what these folks are looking for.

Still, you may be interested in:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/Publications_Brooks.html

Quote
I think it is possible that the barley technology may have come in from the east coast of Africa, and not the drying Sahara.

Barley came from the Near East along with select methods for harvesting it which were then adapted; one can trace the spread down the Valley (or, rather, "up the Nile"). Techniques for harvesting were around in the Nile Valley and surrounds for thousands of years beforehand.

Quote
In any case, I think that there was movement from the drying Sahara to the Nile valley, in response to the climate changes starting after 10,900 BCE,

The movement was in the opposite direction.

Quote
but I would set them later, with the cattle herders. Note the end dates for the early Nile barley tech around 10,000 BCE.

No, the dates for the earliest barley in the Valley are thousands of years later than 10kya.

Quote
If that is not heretical enough, how about this: I think that an advanced Erectus, let us call him Heidelbergensis,

Er no you cannot call H. erectus "H. heidelbergensis".
Logged

Best, Mikey Brass
Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Website: http://www.antiquityofman.com

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
trehinp
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 289



« Reply #20 on: March 28, 2009, 10:02:36 AM »

Hi Mark,

I agree with your over all statement
Quote
I think that one approach showing perhaps not only the transition from the mesolithic to neolithic but from the paleolithic to the neolithic

There is a dire need to understand the Egyptian middle and upper palaeolithic period. MostEgyptologists have been fascinated by the exceptional development of Egyptian culture and too few are interested in the predynastic periods.

Concerning the link that you provided, it is obvious that the data presented contains major errors:

Just one example: Figure [1] is definitely not "from the Ukraine", it is a famous scene from the Lascaux Cave. Furthermore the dates for that painting is about 17 K BP, not 25 K BP. (The use of TYA meaning Thousand Years Ago is not commonly used and I doubt that many readers would have understood it without the reference note on the website.)

This makes the whole reference in that website quite dubbious.

It remains that the development of advanced cultures along the Nile was probably rooted in palaeolithic times. Qurta rock engravings, dated about 15 K years BP, is an example of very advanced rock art on the Nile River during the upper Palaeolithic. I am convinced that other such art manifestations will be discovered in the future.

Yours.

Paul
Logged

Paul Trehin
E.P. Grondine
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #21 on: March 28, 2009, 06:00:31 PM »

I found Collin's book "From the Ashes of Angels" to be pretty entertaining, and his citations in it were pretty good.

I have read it. He mis-represents the data. I would recommend reading David Wengrow and Charles Maisels to get a more accurate feel for the raw data.

Thanks for the pointer. My problem is that we have the X mt DNA haplogroup showing up on the Canadian coast at 8,350 BCE, along with polished stone tool and serated edge technologies - the same things that show up along the Atlantic coast of Africa. One group had a male height of about 7 and a half feet, and other peoples held traditions that these people had cultural affinities similar to those catalogued by Collins. We also have X mt DNA haplogroup survival in the Levant.

I can tell you about the real lunatic fringe archaeology in depth, if you'd care to know about it. You will be amazed.

I've been involved against pseudoscience for 13 years. I can cite the arguments in my sleep:}

Not all of them, since you haven't read my guide inside the cult archaeology industry yet. Email me.

By "Western Sahara", are you talking about the region or the "country"?

The country.


I'm interested in sites along the coast, or along the former rivers, in that area around 40,000 BCE to early Neolithic, rather earlier than what these folks are looking for.


Thanks much. I found among that mention of earlier humid periods, close to the 35,000 BCE dates I'm looking for.

I think it is possible that the barley technology may have come in from the east coast of Africa, and not the drying Sahara.

Barley came from the Near East along with select methods for harvesting it which were then adapted; one can trace the spread down the Valley (or, rather, "up the Nile"). Techniques for harvesting were around in the Nile Valley and surrounds for thousands of years beforehand.

The "Near East" is a pretty big place. I am wondering if the entire technology did not develop in India first, then was carried by boat to the west.

One problem here is with barley showing up at the first cataract of the Nile, and then disappearing ca 10,000 BCE.

In any case, I think that there was movement from the drying Sahara to the Nile valley, in response to the climate changes starting after 10,900 BCE,

The movement was in the opposite direction.

Let's see. Desert gets drier, and cattle herders move into it?

but I would set them later, with the cattle herders. Note the end dates for the early Nile barley tech around 10,000 BCE.

No, the dates for the earliest barley in the Valley are thousands of years later than 10kya.

Not according to Wendorff and Associates - their dates for Kubbaniya 15,100 BCE latest.

If that is not heretical enough, how about this: I think that an advanced Erectus, let us call him Heidelbergensis,

Er no you cannot call H. erectus "H. heidelbergensis".

It would sure make this easier for me if you folks could agree on your taxonomy.
Logged
Mikey Brass
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 207



« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2009, 02:53:42 AM »

My problem is that we have the X mt DNA haplogroup showing up on the Canadian coast at 8,350 BCE, along with polished stone tool and serated edge technologies - the same things that show up along the Atlantic coast of Africa.

This doesn't convince me at all and suggest you get to grips with theory and method in archaeology.

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Reidla2003.pdf is a good genetic paper.

Quote
One problem here is with barley showing up at the first cataract of the Nile, and then disappearing ca 10,000 BCE.

What problem? Barley never appears in the archaeological record of Africa that early.

Quote
Let's see. Desert gets drier, and cattle herders move into it?

http://www.antiquityofman.com/sahara.html - obtain and read the references given (along with the earlier works I have cited), and then come back to this discussion again after you have obtained a semi-decent overview of the existing geological and archaeological datasets.

Quote
Not according to Wendorff and Associates - their dates for Kubbaniya 15,100 BCE latest.

Er. no barley at WK.

Quote
Er no you cannot call H. erectus "H. heidelbergensis". It would sure make this easier for me if you folks could agree on your taxonomy.

Get a copy of Richard Klein's forthcoming 3rd edition of "The Human Career". No one subsumes H. heidelbergensis into H. erectus.
Logged

Best, Mikey Brass
Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Website: http://www.antiquityofman.com

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
E.P. Grondine
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2009, 10:57:43 AM »

My problem is that we have the X mt DNA haplogroup showing up on the Canadian coast at 8,350 BCE, along with polished stone tool and serated edge technologies - the same things that show up along the Atlantic coast of Africa.

This doesn't convince me at all and suggest you get to grips with theory and method in archaeology.
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Reidla2003.pdf is a good genetic paper.

That's the X mt DNA distribution data, from multiple reputable sources. 

If the theory can't account for the data, then the theory is wrong, as was the "Clovis First" theory, and the "asteroid and comet impacts don't happen all that often" theory.

If the "method" is to ignore the data when it upsets the "theory", then the "method" is wrong as well.

By the way, see Peiser and Payne's paper:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/bioastr2002.pdf
as massive impacts apparently separated hominid groups, and appear to account for not only gross physical differences
among hominids but DNA differentiation as well.

Also, watch NOVA this week. The impacts at 10,900 BCE apparently had an effect on the North Pacific current, ultimately leading to your final drying out in the Sahara.

One problem here is with barley showing up at the first cataract of the Nile, and then disappearing ca 10,000 BCE.

What problem? Barley never appears in the archaeological record of Africa that early.

Fred Wendorff et al., Science CCV/4431, September, 1979 "Use of Barley in the Egyptian Late Paleolithic"

Let's see. Desert gets drier, and cattle herders move into it?

http://www.antiquityofman.com/sahara.html - obtain and read the references given (along with the earlier works I have cited), and then come back to this discussion again after you have obtained a semi-decent overview of the existing geological and archaeological datasets.

I am taking a look - the usual archaeology situation: no money, little academic base, limited research. I'm not all that interested in the Sahara River proper; the America are pretty big.

Nice map though. Tan tan and La Y'oun are the areas of interest to me.

The only things I looked at earlier were the Nabtean henges and pre-Dynastic, and I've had a stroke, so my efforts have to be focused now.

Not according to Wendorff and Associates - their dates for Kubbaniya 15,100 BCE latest.

Er. no barley at WK.

Fred Wendorff et al., Science CCV/4431, September, 1979 "Use of Barley in the Egyptian Late Paleolithic"
Or has that work been shown wrong?

Quote
It would sure make this easier for me if you folks could agree on your taxonomy.

Get a copy of Richard Klein's forthcoming 3rd edition of "The Human Career". No one subsumes H. heidelbergensis into H. erectus.

So then what exactly are they calling the HSN and HSS common ancestor now? Or what do you prefer to call him?

PS - Your crank page is excellent, but you do not know the financials of this stuff. My guide inside the cult archaeology industry is available to you for free by writing. Do you know who Augustus Le Plongeon was?

Another point: Your interest in this appears to come from the aquatic ape theory - you're trying to lump the rock hard early fossil data from SE Asia with the other nonsense - but at some point you're going to have to modify your theory to account for it.
Logged
Mikey Brass
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 207



« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2009, 11:30:44 AM »

Quote
If the theory can't account for the data, then the theory is wrong,

AGE101: data is not independent of theory.
There is *major* debate within geneticists engaging with popular history; the current majority view is that haplotype history does not equal populational history.
Anyways, your response does not engage with the premise of my reply which was that you cannot link Atlantic Africa with the Americas 10kya.

[quote author] Fred Wendorff et al., Science CCV/4431, September, 1979 "Use of Barley in the Egyptian Late Paleolithic"[/quote]

I thought you said you had read http://www.antiquityofman.com/wadi_kubbaniya.html . I am debating with myself whether you merely lied or whether you think a Saharan archaeologist would not know something as basic as the debates & data over domestication in North Africa? Which is it?

Let's see. Desert gets drier, and cattle herders move into it?

You're failing to address my answer to your inaccurate statement in your response, again.

Quote
So then what exactly are they calling the HSN and HSS common ancestor now? Or what do you prefer to call him?

Homo erectus was the ancestor of Homo heidelbergensis.
Logged

Best, Mikey Brass
Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Website: http://www.antiquityofman.com

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
E.P. Grondine
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2009, 11:50:52 AM »

If the theory can't account for the data, then the theory is wrong,

AGE101: data is not independent of theory.

That's a classic.

In the case of impacts, the theory used to study them is geological, and entirely independent of anthropological theory.

There is *major* debate within geneticists engaging with popular history; the current majority view is that haplotype history does not equal populational history.
Anyways, your response does not engage with the premise of my reply which was that you cannot link Atlantic Africa with the Americas 10kya.

We have this clovis technology, and a distribution of points found. Clovis appears to have come from the eastern
hemisphere. That leaves Europe or Africa, but the distribution would point to Western Africa.

We have a nice radio carbon dated site in Brazil, a matter of fact two of them, early.

[quote author] Fred Wendorff et al., Science CCV/4431, September, 1979 "Use of Barley in the Egyptian Late Paleolithic"[/quote]

I thought you said you had read http://www.antiquityofman.com/wadi_kubbaniya.html . I am debating with myself whether you merely lied or whether you think a Saharan archaeologist would not know something as basic as the debates & data over domestication in North Africa? Which is it?

I am reading it now, and haven't come to the mesolithic yet. PS, I always enjoy being called a liar or fool, it makes
me suspect your own security in your knowledge. Are you insecure? Me, I'm just trying to work my way through it all.

Let's see. Desert gets drier, and cattle herders move into it?

You're failing to address my answer to your inaccurate statement in your response, again.

If the early barley and microlith dates are wrong, then simply point me to a precise statement, instead of
spending time insulting me.

Quote
So then what exactly are they calling the HSN and HSS common ancestor now? Or what do you prefer to call him?

Homo erectus was the ancestor of Homo heidelbergensis.

In your taxonomy, and theory, then, erectus leads to heidelbergensis, which leads to neanderthal.
Separately, erectus leads to sapiens, who migrate out of Africa.

Problem: VERY early HSS fossils in SE Asia.
Logged
E.P. Grondine
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2009, 12:13:59 PM »

I seem to have found the relevant work:

http://www.antiquityofman.com/cattle_domestication_wendorf1994.html

and I will take a look this afternoon.

Wendorf and Schild again. If their Wadi Kabbniya dates were the result of bad lab work, then please, please
just be civil and say so, leaving out the insults. But at first glance, there are those microliths once more.

Once again, the areas that I am interested in are around Tan Tan and La Y'oun.
Logged
Mikey Brass
Palanth Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 207



« Reply #27 on: March 29, 2009, 12:49:30 PM »

Quote
In the case of impacts, the theory used to study them is geological, and entirely independent of anthropological theory.

Please stop playing around. We are talking about *genetic* and *archaeological* data; in fact, it was in response to your comments regarding haplotypes.

Quote
Clovis appears to have come from the eastern hemisphere.

With the exception of two archaeologists, the vast majority of archaeologists dealing with American prehistory regard Clovis as an indigenious development.

Quote
If the early barley and microlith dates are wrong, then simply point me to a precise statement,

I gave you a link to the article. You then repeated your assertion. Are you really suprised I am annoyed.

Quote
In your taxonomy, and theory, then, erectus leads to heidelbergensis, which leads to neanderthal.
Separately, erectus leads to sapiens, who migrate out of Africa.

Problem: VERY early HSS fossils in SE Asia.

Homo heidelbergensis is in both Euroasia, the Fast East and Africa.

There is no problem.
Logged

Best, Mikey Brass
Ph.D. student, Institute of Archaeology, UCL
Website: http://www.antiquityofman.com

- !ke e: /xarra //ke
("Diverse people unite": Motto of the South African Coat of Arms, 2002)
E.P. Grondine
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #28 on: March 29, 2009, 03:16:44 PM »

Please stop playing around. We are talking about *genetic* and *archaeological* data; in fact, it was in response to your comments regarding haplotypes.

One item I was referring to was X mt DNA haplogroup distribution in regards to Andrew Collin's work, and contact from
Europe about 8,350 BE.
The other item I referred to concerned Savanah river peoples and contact from Africa through South America about 35,000 BCE.
Now what is your problem that doesn't permit you to keep these two concepts separate? I myself have had a stroke,
so I've learned how to live with mistakes.

By the way, we have been treated about every other week to a new startling DNA differentiation claim.
Massive comet and asteroid impacts allow pretty accurate settings for the rates of DNA differentiation.

Quote
Clovis appears to have come from the eastern hemisphere.

With the exception of two archaeologists, the vast majority of archaeologists dealing with American prehistory regard Clovis as an indigenious development.

While the fluting is "American", I had been led to think that the Solutrean origin of the overstrike technology was more widely considered than by 2 people.

Quote
If the early barley and microlith dates are wrong, then simply point me to a precise statement,

I gave you a link to the article. You then repeated your assertion. Are you really suprised I am annoyed.

Yes, I find your insults both annoying and distracting. Why not just repeat the link, and save the insult? For some reason I seem to have missed the specific citation to Kubbinaya, but only saw the link for your site in general, which is a fine site, by the way, though it has no materials on the Tan Tan and La Y'ouan areas, as near as I can see yet. The Western Sahara is the area of interest for me.

While Wendorf concluded the Kubbaniya barley dates were wrong, note that he is still puzzled how this came about. Surface microliths may show oxidation layers which might clarify this. Personally, I'm still puzzled by the sequence, especially with the Libyan desert glass microliths.

I also learned that the earlier dates for the Nabtaen "henges" were wrong as well, and I learned that man would move from the Nile as the eastern desert got wet, which occured in spurts, and that the Holocene drying was not continuous.

Quote
In your taxonomy, and theory, then, erectus leads to heidelbergensis, which leads to neanderthal.
Separately, erectus leads to sapiens, who migrate out of Africa.

Problem: VERY early HSS fossils in SE Asia.

Homo heidelbergensis is in both Euroasia, the Fast East, and Africa.
There is no problem.

Thank you. Now that the taxonomy is clear,
there is still a problem: VERY early HSS fossils in SE Asia.
In other words not the "Aquatic Ape",  which you mistakenly lump with cult archaeology, IMO, but rather an Aquatic hominid.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas, and
Amazing Stories - a guide inside today's cult archaeology industry




Logged
E.P. Grondine
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


« Reply #29 on: March 29, 2009, 03:38:00 PM »

Please stop playing around. We are talking about *genetic* and *archaeological* data; in fact, it was in response to your comments regarding haplotypes.

One item I was referring to was X mt DNA haplogroup distribution in regards to Andrew Collin's work, and contact from
Europe about 8,350 BE.

The other item I referred to concerned Savanah river peoples and contact from Africa through South America about 35,000 BCE.

Now what is your problem that doesn't permit you to keep these two concepts separate?

By the way, we have been treated about every other week to a new startling DNA differentiation claim.
Massive comet and asteroid impacts allow pretty accurate settings for the rates of DNA differentiation.

Quote
Clovis appears to have come from the eastern hemisphere.

With the exception of two archaeologists, the vast majority of archaeologists dealing with American prehistory regard Clovis as an indigenious development.

While the fluting is "American", I had been led to think that the Solutrean origin of the overstrike technology was more widely considered than by 2 people.

Quote
If the early barley and microlith dates are wrong, then simply point me to a precise statement,

I gave you a link to the article. You then repeated your assertion. Are you really suprised I am annoyed.

Yes, I find your insults both annoying and distracting. Why not just repeat the assertion and the link, and save the insult? For some reason I seem to have missed Wendorf's retraction, but only saw the initial charcoal rc dates, and not the revision of the grain dates. You have a fine site,  though it has no materials on the Tan Tan and La Y'ouan areas, as near as I can see yet. The Western Sahara/Atlantic Coast is the area of interest for me.

While Wendorf concluded the Kubbaniya barley dates were wrong, note that he is still puzzled how this came about, and ascribing the grinding stones to tuber use. Surface microliths may show oxidation layers which might clarify this. Personally, I'm still puzzled by the sequence, especially with the Libyan desert glass microliths. Do we have a firm sequence of these blades moving down from the "Fertile Crescent"?

I also learned that the earlier dates for the Nabtaen "henges" were wrong as well, and I learned that man would move from the Nile as the eastern desert got wet, which occurred in spurts, and that the Holocene drying was not continuous.

Quote
In your taxonomy, and theory, then, erectus leads to heidelbergensis, which leads to neanderthal.
Separately, erectus leads to sapiens, who migrate out of Africa.

Problem: VERY early HSS fossils in SE Asia.

Homo heidelbergensis is in both Euroasia, the Fast East, and Africa.
There is no problem.

Thank you. Now that the taxonomy is clear,
there is still a problem: VERY early HSS fossils in SE Asia.
In other words not the "Aquatic Ape",  which you mistakenly lump with cult archaeology, in my opinioin,
but rather an Aquatic hominid.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas, and
Amazing Stories - a guide inside today's cult archaeology industry





Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.5 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!