Quote:
Originally Posted by Lutiferre
If physical anthropology doesnt have any merits on its own without ancestral "historical" considerations, then one should abolish the discipline
|
That is my point, otherwise anthropologist would have never been able to identify and establish the history of proto-historical populations and phaenotypes migrations as they would gone astray in the anthropological identification of the human remains unearthed in the different archaeological sites
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gnist
This one I don't agree with at all. Doubt/remarkable/"local" -> UP. That's just wrong. And I'm not convinced by the arguments offered. "Remarkable internal variability" is a very dubious concept, that doesn't offer as much as a clue in the individual case. This rule seems to be designed to prevent Mediterranean badges of honour to be handed out in dubitable cases. It's a biased rule on a certain mediterraneanist agenda, the other end of what OEN criticised in "North Atlantids Do Not Exist"; the antithesis to inclusive nordicism, only on a general mediterraneanist viewpoint. It is exclusive and obscure mediterraneanism
|
Well, this a rule I had overred.
To begin with I would put a tombstone on the UP / Mediterraean taxonomic system and replace it by the Cro-Magnid / Aurignacid one and I even suggest the Cro-Magnid/Aurignacid/Taurid* one.
The UP type concept is erroneous as the morphological ancestor of the so called Mediterranean, nordic, Orientalid, Irano-Afghan and Indid morphological types** where already present in the UP times, as exemplified by the Combe-Capelle man or even the Galley Hill *** man who might be a proto AM
=================================
* I'd put dinaroids, armenoids and other apparently related morphologies in a third group ("Taurid") as long as their affinities are not clearly establish or till there's not a fairly majoritary concensus on the matter
** I would not talk much about racial types as people belonging to such types are much mixed and in some instances and given locations individuals of different morphological affinity would be almost identical from the genetic point of view.
*** I think I red that the age of Galley Hill man was overestimated in the days of TROE to 47000 years BP and that in fact it was just a 12000/10000 years BP intrusive burial (i.e. the body was buried in 47.000 years old sediments - 37000/35000 years old when the burial occured
)