Talk:Iberomaurusian

Haplogroup M link

In the first paragraph under "Genetics" the "M" should link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)

Right now it just links to a page on the letter M.

- 2601:4C1:C57F:F70:F430:8173:CA96:D630 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Why "Ibero-"?

This culture does not extend to Spain. Just wondering. Kortoso (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Pallary (1909) coined the term because he thought the culture extended to Spain, based on descriptions of Spanish material by L. Siret (1893). Prehistorians have thought this link spurious for almost a century (at least since Garrod 1938) and have tried to shake off the name for decades. Tixier (1963) calls it "deplorable and deplored". But it stuck. Even researchers that propose alternatives (Oranian, Mouillan, Epipalaeolithic, Late Upper Palaeolithic of Northwest African facies) themselves continue to use "Iberomaurusian". A quirk of history. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iberomaurusian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311200852/http://www.isabs.hr/PDF/2013/ISABS-2013_book_of_abstracts.pdf to http://www.isabs.hr/PDF/2013/ISABS-2013_book_of_abstracts.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss before changing the dates of the Iberomaurusian

It is important to distinguish uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from calibrated radiocarbon dates, since there can be differences of up to 4000 years between the two. For instance, one of the earliest potentially Iberomaurusian dates is 21,240 ± 130 ¹⁴C BP (Tamar Hat, OxA-27506, Hogue and Barton 2016). This date calibrates to 25,845-25,270 cal BP (95.4% confidence) with the IntCal 13 calibration curve. To determine whether dates given in the literature are calibrated or not, one can use the following key:

• ¹⁴C BP or uncal BP: uncalibrated.
• cal BP: calibrated.
• BP: Used alone, this is largely meaningless with four exceptions:

1) The source giving the date was published before 1998, when the IntCal98 calibration curve was published. In these cases, the given dates can be assumed uncalibrated.

2) It is specified elsewhere in the text that all given dates are either calibrated or uncalibrated.

3) The date is given with a margin of error. Almost always, uncalibrated dates use the plus-minus symbol (e.g. 21,240 ± 130 BP) and calibrated dates use the dash (e.g. 25,845-25,270 BP).

4) The laboratory number is given (e.g. c. 21,000 BP (OxA-27506)). In these cases, it is often possible to google the laboratory number and determine whether the cited date is calibrated or not.

Dates in the format of "c. 8000 BP" are needlessly confusing, both in scientific literature and on Wikipedia.

Hogue and Barton (2016) have collected all published Iberomaurusian dates in the appendix of their paper. It is therefore superfluous to cite pre-2016 sources. In their appendix, the earliest Iberomaurusian date is 9470 ¹⁴C BP, which calibrates to 11,071-10,573 cal BP. Therefore, as of 2016, no Iberomaurusian date is reliably dated to a date later than 11,000 cal BP. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I spun this into a new inline template: Nicolas Perrault (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent Lazaridis et al. Study (2018)

A study by Lazaridis et al. (2018) found the Iberomaurusian samples of Taforalt to be an approximately even mixture of Western Eurasian ancestry (derived from the Caucasus and/or the Near East) and ancestry from a now-extinct and divergent African population indigenous to North Africa (termed "ANA" or "Ancestral North African"), which diverged in North Africa shortly before the Out-of-Africa migration, and was distinct from both Eurasian/non-African and current sub-saharan peoples. Lazaridis et al. also found evidence that Iberomaurusian peoples from North Africa contributed to the genetics of the Natufians of the ancient Levant, and suggest that North Africa may have been the source of Y-haplogroup E lineages in the Middle East. (Recent edit: This study, now as before, is not yet peer-reviewed and thus not admissable to the article/not WP:RS - as confirmed for me at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. But after removing it from the article (having previously added it), I then added mention of it here in Talk instead, per a suggestion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.) Skllagyook (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank

Thank YOu for the perfect genetic information. But please try to form standard sentences with S-P-O, the subject her being the primary researcher. Thank You.HJJHolm (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Iberomaurusian cusine

Iberomaurusian cusine was largely plant-based.

References

---- Jamplevia (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)