Wildboar
20thMarch2005, 14:46
Letters on the Sunday Times
Beyond racism
Andrew Sciberras, Hamrun.
I refer to the letter by Dr Pierre Schembri Wismayer (The Sunday Times, January 30).
While there is general agreement among anthropologists that all the races of modern man evolved from a preceding primitive human, Homo erectus, there is dispute about how this evolution came about.
One theory, the 'Regional Continuity Theory' is that as Homo erectus spread over Africa and Eurasia, separate populations gradually evolved in response to selection for adaptation to the demands of their different environments into the different races. The races still remained one species because genes continued to be exchanged between the different populations and no reproductive barrier arose.
The separate populations of Homo erectus evolved by parallel evolution those characteristics by which we recognise modern Homo sapiens, especially the enlarged brain and the less robust skeleton.
According to this theory, Homo sapiens evolved from several stems of Homo erectus in different areas of the earth (polyphyletic evolution).
The other main theory, the 'Out of Africa Theory', maintains that Homo sapiens evolved from a population of Homo erectus in only one place, viz., Africa, and then spread out as Homo sapiens into Europe, Asia and Australia (monophyletic evolution). In these different environments, distinctive racial characteristics evolved.
Excavations in Siberia prove that the most ancient centres of civilisation that is, the central lands of the continent, were the cradle of Euro-Asian mankind. Prehistoric sites in Siberia and Russia are identical to those found in Malta, here, in the centre of the Mediterranean. One such prehistoric site in Siberia is actually called the Malta Settlement.
The first inhabitants of these islands must have been the Aryans, the builders. Our magnificent temples at Mnajdra and elsewhere testify to this. The islanders must have spoken an Indo-European tongue.
With the total disappearance of the Ice Age, certain biological changes did start to creep into the proto-Nordic race. In southern and central Europe, a process of an increasing head breadth began to develop, which eventually resulted in the Alpine race.
In the 1920s the well known British anthropologist L.H Dudley Buxton studied Maltese ethnicity. He proved conclusively that the Maltese are ethnically European, of the Eastern Alpine type, who settled here around 2500 BC during the Bronze Age. These were certainly Indo-Europeans, pre-Doric, the battle-axe people.
In this context it is relevant to note the findings of Dr Wyatt, an expert on poliomyelitis, as reported in the Times of Malta of July 23, 1992. Dr Wyatt found that although the climate in Malta was similar to that of the Middle East, the disease affected its Maltese victims in the same way as it affected Europeans and North Americans. It was quite different from symptoms found in Middle Eastern and African patients.
I agree with Dr Schembri Wismayer that Maltese is fundamentally a Semitic language. Unlike other Semitic languages, however, it is written in the Latin alphabet, but with the addition of special characters to accommodate certain Semitic sounds. It would not be fair, however, to stop here. For there is much in the Maltese language today that is not Semitic, due to the immeasurable Romantce influence from our succession of (southern) European rulers through the ages.
I also agree with Dr Schembri Wismayer that more in-bred a population is, the more unhealthy it is, in genetic terms. It is a fact that members of the same tribe who breed only among themselves are subject to specific diseases. It is also true that through the ages there was an inter-breeding with our rulers, as he stated. But he must keep in mind that after the Arab period our interbreeding was mainly within the European genetic framework.
As he knows quite well, breeding with Africans is almost totally absent. An imminent breeding with Africans can produce a drastic change in the genetic framework of our offspring. Therefore, it is much wiser, in genetic terms, that in the near future we inter-breed with others of a nearby genetic framework.
Pseudo-science to justify racism
Isabelle Vella Gregory
The growing trend of blatant racism in Malta is worrying enough in itself. That certain individuals have resorted to invoking "science" to justify their beliefs is even more odious.
I refer specifically to recent comments by Norman Lowell and to a letter by Andrew Sciberras (The Sunday Times, February 13). While many of our scientists have rightly set the record straight with regard to Mr Lowell, I am particularly worried by Mr Sciberras's racist overtones and complete skewing of the scientific and palaeoanthropological record.
Mr Sciberras is alas not alone in resorting to pseudo-science to justify racist ideas. Past approaches have included the use of craniometry, which involves the measurement of cranial features to classify people according to race, criminal temperament, intelligence, etc.
The underlying assumption is that this determines brain size, which in turn determines intelligence and the capacity for "moral behaviour". There is no empirical evidence for this, but this has not hindered people from making many preposterous claims. In particular, the Nazi regime made use of this dubious technique to distinguish between "Aryans" and "non-Aryans".
Worryingly, some individuals also wish to resort to eugenics (for example Mr Jean Govè on the recent Bondìplus, which I was able to watch via http://www.di-ve.com/ (http://www.di-ve.com/)). Eugenics involves tyrannical control over people's reproductive abilities.
It aims to "restrict" the gene pool by eliminating "undesirable" elements, which have variously included people of colour and people whose intellectual capabilities were considered sub-par. While such a concept is distasteful in itself, it is also worth noting again what our geneticists have pointed out, "genetic purity" is not biologically healthy.
On another level, no one has the right to determine which traits might be considered undesirable. Unlike Mr Govè, Mr Sciberras has not specifically mentioned eugenics, but his claims that there has been "no breeding with Africans" have odious undertones. I suggest that anyone interested in origins and genetics should have a look at the excellent book What it means to be 98% chimpanzee: Apes, people and their genes, by Jonathan Marks.
With reference to Mr Sciberas's attempt to explain the origins of humanity, his summary of the Out-of-Africa and the Multiregional (which he terms Regional Continuity Theory) models, fails to take into account that there are numerous versions of these two models, for example Fred Smith's Assimilation Hypothesis, which broadly falls under the Multiregional umbrella.
Be that as it may, neither model recognises the existence of any race as defined by Mr Lowell and his ilk. When a palaeonthropologist speaks of race, he/she is referring to anatomical variation over large geographical distances (also known as cline variation) and not to separate biological entities.
Contrary to Mr Sciberras's claims, the Multiregional model does not recognise parallel evolution (i.e. the appearance of similar anatomical characteristics in different places under different conditions through different processes, with an emphasis on difference). It is the Out-of-Africa supporters who, to a degree, recognise parallel evolution and use it as an argument against the former.
Additionally, there is disagreement over whether Homo erectus should be classified as a species according to phylogenetic or evolutionary species constructs. In practice, this means species are defined according to anatomical differences, as in the former, or according to a single lineage that maintains its anatomical identity distinct from other lineages over a long period of time.
This is not the place to give a detailed summary of evolutionary and palaeoanthropological studies. Milford Wolpoff's Palaeoanthropology, Richard Klein's The Human Career and Ernest Mayr's What Evolution Is should provide enough material as a starting point.
As a final note on this subject, what Mr Sciberras fails to point out is that both models recognise that the vast majority of our DNA comes from Africa - what is disputed is whether there were genetic contributions (and therefore a degree of interbreeding) between African and Eurasian Homo.
Having dispensed with the oversimplification of human evolutionary processes, I now turn your readers' attention to Mr Sciberras's attempt to link the Siberian site of Mal'ta (please note the spelling) and our fair isle, Malta. The simple act of misspelling it gives a very false impression to the reader.
The Siberian site dates to the middle stages of the Upper Palaeolithic, c.23,000 BC, although recent studies claim that some of the remains could date to even earlier. Both spatially and temporally, this is very far from the island of Malta and I join many archaeologists in assuring Mr Sciberras that despite the presumed similarities in nomenclature, there is no connection between the two.
Sites in Siberia and Russia are not identical to those found in Malta. For one thing, Malta has as yet not yielded any traces of the Palaeolithic, while the Neolithic sites in Eastern Europe are significantly different to those in Malta.
I strongly suggest that Mr Sciberras read Steven Mithen's After the Ice: A Global human history 20,000 to 5000 BC and Richard Klein's The Human Career. Since Mr Sciberras seems to be so interested in Siberian prehistory, might I recommend The Palaeolithic of Siberia: New Discoveries and Interpretations, by Anatoliy P. Derev'Anko, Demitri Boris Shimkin et al.
The first inhabitants of our fair isles came from Sicily, not Eastern Europe, and they date to the Holocene, not the Palaeolithic. This hypothesis is not simply based on geographical proximity, but also on similarity in what is often referred to as the Neolithic kit, which includes domesticated animals and plants, tools and pottery.
Radiocarbon dates from the village of Skorba in Mgarr place the first arrival of humans in Malta to c. 5000 BC. Two excellent, accessible books on Maltese prehistory are Anthony Bonanno's Il-Preistorja and David Trump's Malta: Prehistory and Temples.
At this point it is also worth noting that the Indo-European language arose during the Holocene, i.e. post-Upper Palaeolithic in northern India. This in itself rules out Indo-Europeans as being the occupants of the Mal'ta settlement in southern Siberia, whether one accepts a Multiregional or Out-of-Africa model.
As for the claimed proto-Nordic race, it is with regret that I inform Mr Sciberras that no such race existed; there is absolutely no biological or genetic entity as a pure "race".
With reference to the claim that after the Arab period we "interbred" within the European genetic framework, may I point out that there is absolutely no evidence for this, unless Mr Sciberras is aware of some ground-breaking studies he would like to share. May I also point out that while we were under the influence of Sicilian Arab Muslims, the cultural group known as the Arabs hail originally from the Near East, they subsequently migrated to North Africa and interbred with the local populations.
It should also be brought to the readers' attention that there is more genetic variation between relatively neighbouring populations within Africa than there is between Africans and the rest of the world. Any breeding between peoples from different continents is welcome to sustain the long-term viability and continuity of the peoples. Peoples have interbred for thousands of years. As any geneticist will point out, it is wise to continue to allow natural evolution to continue its course of biological evolution.
On a personal note, I wish to encourage more of our eminent scientists to continue to speak out and correct various misconceptions. May I also encourage the education authorities to strengthen general science education in Malta and the teaching of physical and cultural anthropology.
Knowledge is the most powerful tool a human being has. Armed with correct knowledge, we can swiftly quash any ridiculous claims of the type being made by Mr Lowell and his ilk. Coupled with a deeper understanding of human cultural difference, this will put an end to the many nonsensical claims currently making the rounds.
Ms Vella Gregory is reading for an M.Phil. in Archaeology at the University of Cambridge.
ON SCIENCE AND RACISM
Andrew Sciberras
I refer to the article by Ms. Isabelle Vella Gregory (The Sunday Times, Feb 20).
It’s becoming a trend that someone who expresses openly his views on this vast subject is being labelled as a racist. In her article, she twisted my references in a way that a different picture on the account of their intention was given.
In my previous letter, I gave a very brief summary of evolutionary and palaeoanthropological studies, since space in newspaper is limited.
I used only the term Aryan by meaning the noble builders.
Regarding the Siberian site of Malta I will elaborate further. The cult of the Great Mother Goddess, a thaumaturgic figure, has monopolized the attention of archaeological studies in Malta. Our world famous Hypogeum, recently restored with meticulous care, draws serious scholars and students. The importance of this site is so great that a similar site in Siberia discovered in 1928 was named ‘The Malta Settlement’.
Palaeolithic artifacts produced by the same people were found also all across the Caucasus, Crimea, Russia steppes, Siberia, the Altai and near the river Dnester. Female figurines from the Malta-Siberia dwellings are worthy of particular attention. They are exceptionally rare, early Palaeolith figurines wearing some form of garments. Found also are plates made from mammoth tusk, depicting a mammoth and snakes, as well as figurines of stylized flying birds. Arrow tips are also in the form of stylized birds, signifying the oneness of shooter target.
The artifacts at Kostenky I have more geometrical patterns, while a female figurine is very similar to The Maltese Goddess.
This whole era is Mondmensch. The female predominates: she is everywhere venerated. The temples themselves, like the splendid Mnajdra, are shaped like a Female displaying her vulva towards the rising sun at the winter solstice.
Ms. Isabelle Vella Gregory stated that Malta has as yet not yielded any traces of the Palaeolithic period. This is absolutely not true, because a Palaeolithic cave art in Ghar Hassan, teeth found at Ghar Dalam, Clactonian and microlithic flints from various sites prove the opposite. An interesting lecture on this subject, titled ‘Palaeolithic man and his environment in Malta’, was delivered a few years ago by Dr. C. Savona and Dr. A. Mifsud.
In my previous letter, there is no single reference stating that the latest inhabitants did not come here from Stentinello in Southeast Sicily around 5,000BC.
To create a scenario on these magnificent builders through the ages, one can read an interesting article that appeared in HERRA magazine, Rome, by Vittorio Di Cessare and Adriano Forgione. The work of Professor Walter B. Emery the famous Egyptologist, author of ‘Archaic Egypt’, also spreads light on this subject.
Regarding the prove of a biological race, I strongly suggest to Ms. Isabelle Vella Gregory to read the study of Nei and Roychoudhury (Mol. Bio. Evol. 10, 927-943, 1993).
A true fact, that anyone can’t deny, is that up to forty years ago Malta had only one black, and he was treated with dignity. Only in this context I stated that breeding with Africans is almost totally absent. If these facts will be interpreted as racism, then I will beg pardon.
Theories of human evolution
Isabelle Vella Gregory, Cambridge, UK.
With reference to Mr Andrew Sciberras's reply (The Sunday Times, March 6), I would like to note that I was making two points, the first being a correction of his inaccurate use of archaeology and palaeoanthropology, the second a general comment on recent trends of using pseudo-science to justify racism. In no way was I calling Mr Sciberras a racist and I apologise if I was misunderstood.
However, his summary of evolutionary studies was mostly incorrect and various key points were left out. The term Aryan has explicit racial tones and is not used in mainstream archaeology. Moreover, it is a cultural term, these peoples are already part of a biological population, the Caucasians.
I will not enter into a Goddess debate, although Mr Sciberras and anyone else who is interested are welcome to contact me privately on the matter. However, some points need to be corrected. The Siberian site was not named thus because of Malta (the island) and I am reliably informed by archaeologists who are specialists in that area that the two are pronounced very differently.
Regarding Palaeolithic artefacts, real and perceived similarities in style do not equate to the same people. A closer examination of the archaeological record (again, interested readers can discuss this with me in private) reveals important variations and similarities.
Mr Sciberras is harbouring notions of diffusionism as expressed by Vere Gordon-Childe, who applied aspects of Marxist methodology to understand and theorise about past peoples.
Moreover, female Palaeolithic (and indeed Neolithic) figurines are in no way rare in Central and Eastern Europe. These figurines have been the subject of extensive studies and indeed continue to feature prominently in many archaeological debates, notably at the University of Cambridge.
Regarding possible Palaeolithic traces in Malta, I am very much aware of the claims. However, nothing is yet certain. Like many other scholars, I await more rigorous studies and published results.
With reference to the study by Nei and Roychoudhury, a reference known to the majority of anthropology and archaeology students, Mr Sciberras seems to have only read the abstract. The paper is looking at divergences between human populations and it does not include Siberia among the Aryans. Mr Sciberras seems to be conflating historical notions of race with mainstream biological applications.
Since Mr Sciberras is very interested in this subject, I would suggest works by Alan Templeton, who writes in various journals, Harry Harpending and C. Loring Brace. Another excellent book which doubtless Mr Sciberras will find very interesting is by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata, Where do we come from? The molecular evidence for human descent.
Palaeolithic man in Malta
Antonio Magro, Qrendi,
I read with interest the articles of Mr Andrew Sciberras and Ms Isabelle Vella Gregory (The Sunday Times, March 6, 13).
Mr Sciberras quite rightly says that there is evidence of Palaeolithic man in Malta. It is also true that there are similarities between the Malta-Siberia site and the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum, but he does not prove that a continuity of culture occurred.
Let me quote from a lecture delivered by Dr Charles Savona-Ventura and Dr Anton Mifsud.
The presence of Palaeolithic man on the Maltese Islands during the late Upper Pleistocene is to be expected when one considers that the islands were connected to the mainland by a well-defined land bridge.
The culture of Palaeolithic man was based on a hunter-gatherer economy, and he would have been expected to follow the southern migration of the deer herds. Palaeolithic man with his hunter-gather culture was unlikely to leave a major impact on his environment, in contrast to the later Neolithic man who modified the environment to suit his needs.
One would expect only scraps of material evidence of the presence of Palaeolithic man on the small area covered by the Maltese Islands. Evidence of Palaeolithic man has been described from various sites in Central Europe. In Sicily there is ample evidence of Palaeolithic man and his culture.
Professor Emmanuel Anati in 1990 described a number of prehistoric cave paintings at Ghar Hasan. These paintings included various animal figures, an anthropo-zoological image, various handprints and a variety of ideograms.
Another probably Palaeolithic painting depicting a bull - an animal which was apparently considered to be sacred - was discovered at the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum. It is probable that the Hypogeum was a natural cave complex, which was used by Palaeolithic man during the Ice Age.
Later (neolithic) civilisations artificially enlarged the cave system for death cult practices. During the architectural modifications, Neolithic man came across the still considered sacred bull depiction. This earlier painting was respected and conserved so that the cave wall where the bull was depicted remained in its natural state and the painting was not covered with the red ochre wash which covers the rest of the cave.
Ironically, a Palaeolithic painting conserved by primitive Neolithic man was erased by "civilised man" in the 1980s. Fortunately, this example of cave art has been preserved in the form of photographs taken during the discovery. A number of microlithic flints dating to the Palaeolithic period were found in various sites of the island.
The population of Palaeolithic man on the Maltese Islands could not have been very numerous and thus Palaeolithic human skeletal remains are scanty. Furthermore, Palaeolithic man generally buried his dead in caves.
These are the skeletal remains excavated from Ghar Dalam cave floor deposits:
1. A human hand bone excavated by J.H. Cooke (1892) in Trench IV in association with Cervus remains.
2. A taurodontised human upper first molar [Ma2] excavated by C. Rizzo (1917) in Despott's Trench No. II (second layer). This same layer also yielded some phalanges and part of a skull in association with "bones of stag and of a small rodent, probably a vole".
3. A taurodontised first milk molar excavated by G. Despott (1917) in Trench II (third layer) in association with stag remains.
4. A tooth and some phalanges excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Middle Trench (second layer) in association with deer, hippopotamus and vole remains.
5. Seven teeth (two incisors, one a canine excavated from beneath a stalagmitic layer about half an inch thick), a metacarpal and a phalanx excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Middle Trench (third layer) in association with deer, hippopotami and elephant remains.
6. One molar excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Outer Trench (second layer) in association with deer remains.
7. A tooth excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Outer Trench (fourth layer) in association with deer, fox, wolf and hippopotamus.
8. Molar tooth excavated by G. Sinclair at a depth described as two feet lower than that of G. Despott.
9. A tooth [Ma 1] excavated by G. Caton Thompson (1923) in association with hippopotamus and deer, but this layer was described as 'unstratified' and may have been disturbed.
10. Third left taurodontised molar [Ma 7] excavated by J. Baldacchino (1936).
Is the Palaeolithic evidence secure?
Mevrick Spiteri, Mosta.
I read with great interest, the letters dealing with Palaeolithic man's remains in Malta was discussed.
I wish to make two points regarding Mr Magro's letter (The Sunday Times, March 20). The first is that by now prehistoric studies and evidences do securely push back the first human presence in Malta to circa 7,000 years ago. Palaeolithic cave art at Ghar Hasan, Clactonian and microlithic flints, and human remains in Ghar Dalam, tend to give the impression that humans were present in Malta at an earlier date. However, from all this evidence there is nothing yet which securely proves such an early human presence on the islands.
What archaeologists are saying is simply that there is no secure evidence for such findings. In fact Ms Isabelle Vella Gregory (The Sunday Times, March 13) herself did point out that: "Like many other scholars, [she] awaits more rigorous studies and published results."
The second point regards his reference to Palaeolithic cave art at Ghar Hasan and Hal Saflieni Hypogeum. The cave paintings at Ghar Hasan were then checked by Professor Bonanno and other archaeologists. It was claimed that due to the high currents within the cave, it was very difficult for these paintings to have survived, and that some designs are thought to have been the result of modern times.
On the other hand, the bull depiction at Hal Saflieni is dated to the Temple period: Saflieni/Tarxien phase. Besides, this depiction is not a completely isolated piece of art; other similar bull depictions, though carved in stone are found at Tarxien temple.
As regards the statement that Hal Saflieni was originally a natural cave, I ask: What archaeological evidence is there with which we could prove that at first the Hypogeum was a natural cave (i.e. pre-Temple Period)".
Evidence on Palaeolithic Man
Anton Magro, Qrendi.
With reference to Mevrick Spiteri's reply (The Sunday Times, March 27), in my previous letter I was making the point that there is a scientific ground to conclude that there is a strong case for the presence of Palaeolithic Man in Malta before the first Neolithic settlement.
As Mr Spiteri stated, various studies were performed on the Ghar Hasan cave paintings by archaeologists who came to different conclusions on data.
But some highly famous archaeologists concluded that the images identified at Ghar Hasan appertain, by way of style, analogy, graphic design and concept, to a horizon of hunter society and they definitely antedate the first Neolithic Maltese folk.
Regarding the Palaeolithic painting depicting a bull from the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum, everyone who is familiar with the subject knows that this painting was erased by 'civilised man' in the 1980s and no further study can be performed on it.
In addition to the Palaeolithic pattern of the Hypogeum bull as characterised by the lack of detail and the materials used (black manganese oxide), the red ochre used at the hypogeum has been found on scientific testing by Russian UNESCO representatives to be identical to the world famous Lascaux Palaeolithic paintings in France.
On the subject of human skeletal remains, the most discussed items in the collection are the two taurodont teeth and another tooth, which were excavated by Despott in 1917-20 from the Cervus layer at Ghar Dalam.
These teeth were repeatedly scientifically dated in 1952 and 1968, and while the Museums Department failed to publish the full results of these tests, the primary source of the tests indicated that these teeth may have been contemporaneous with the excavated deer bones, and thus datable to 18,000 years ago.
Similar dating results were obtained from two teeth excavated from the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum in 1952. In view of the suggested possible cultural admixture of skeletal remains in Maltese cave burial sites, it is suggested that some of the excavated material from these sites "could possibly belong to Palaeolithic man".
In particular, one must consider the skulls, which according to anthropologists and anatomists could have primitive features.
Finally, one may well question whether there was further cave art evidence of Palaeolithic man in Malta, which today has disappeared through the erosive effects of time.
Beyond racism
Andrew Sciberras, Hamrun.
I refer to the letter by Dr Pierre Schembri Wismayer (The Sunday Times, January 30).
While there is general agreement among anthropologists that all the races of modern man evolved from a preceding primitive human, Homo erectus, there is dispute about how this evolution came about.
One theory, the 'Regional Continuity Theory' is that as Homo erectus spread over Africa and Eurasia, separate populations gradually evolved in response to selection for adaptation to the demands of their different environments into the different races. The races still remained one species because genes continued to be exchanged between the different populations and no reproductive barrier arose.
The separate populations of Homo erectus evolved by parallel evolution those characteristics by which we recognise modern Homo sapiens, especially the enlarged brain and the less robust skeleton.
According to this theory, Homo sapiens evolved from several stems of Homo erectus in different areas of the earth (polyphyletic evolution).
The other main theory, the 'Out of Africa Theory', maintains that Homo sapiens evolved from a population of Homo erectus in only one place, viz., Africa, and then spread out as Homo sapiens into Europe, Asia and Australia (monophyletic evolution). In these different environments, distinctive racial characteristics evolved.
Excavations in Siberia prove that the most ancient centres of civilisation that is, the central lands of the continent, were the cradle of Euro-Asian mankind. Prehistoric sites in Siberia and Russia are identical to those found in Malta, here, in the centre of the Mediterranean. One such prehistoric site in Siberia is actually called the Malta Settlement.
The first inhabitants of these islands must have been the Aryans, the builders. Our magnificent temples at Mnajdra and elsewhere testify to this. The islanders must have spoken an Indo-European tongue.
With the total disappearance of the Ice Age, certain biological changes did start to creep into the proto-Nordic race. In southern and central Europe, a process of an increasing head breadth began to develop, which eventually resulted in the Alpine race.
In the 1920s the well known British anthropologist L.H Dudley Buxton studied Maltese ethnicity. He proved conclusively that the Maltese are ethnically European, of the Eastern Alpine type, who settled here around 2500 BC during the Bronze Age. These were certainly Indo-Europeans, pre-Doric, the battle-axe people.
In this context it is relevant to note the findings of Dr Wyatt, an expert on poliomyelitis, as reported in the Times of Malta of July 23, 1992. Dr Wyatt found that although the climate in Malta was similar to that of the Middle East, the disease affected its Maltese victims in the same way as it affected Europeans and North Americans. It was quite different from symptoms found in Middle Eastern and African patients.
I agree with Dr Schembri Wismayer that Maltese is fundamentally a Semitic language. Unlike other Semitic languages, however, it is written in the Latin alphabet, but with the addition of special characters to accommodate certain Semitic sounds. It would not be fair, however, to stop here. For there is much in the Maltese language today that is not Semitic, due to the immeasurable Romantce influence from our succession of (southern) European rulers through the ages.
I also agree with Dr Schembri Wismayer that more in-bred a population is, the more unhealthy it is, in genetic terms. It is a fact that members of the same tribe who breed only among themselves are subject to specific diseases. It is also true that through the ages there was an inter-breeding with our rulers, as he stated. But he must keep in mind that after the Arab period our interbreeding was mainly within the European genetic framework.
As he knows quite well, breeding with Africans is almost totally absent. An imminent breeding with Africans can produce a drastic change in the genetic framework of our offspring. Therefore, it is much wiser, in genetic terms, that in the near future we inter-breed with others of a nearby genetic framework.
Pseudo-science to justify racism
Isabelle Vella Gregory
The growing trend of blatant racism in Malta is worrying enough in itself. That certain individuals have resorted to invoking "science" to justify their beliefs is even more odious.
I refer specifically to recent comments by Norman Lowell and to a letter by Andrew Sciberras (The Sunday Times, February 13). While many of our scientists have rightly set the record straight with regard to Mr Lowell, I am particularly worried by Mr Sciberras's racist overtones and complete skewing of the scientific and palaeoanthropological record.
Mr Sciberras is alas not alone in resorting to pseudo-science to justify racist ideas. Past approaches have included the use of craniometry, which involves the measurement of cranial features to classify people according to race, criminal temperament, intelligence, etc.
The underlying assumption is that this determines brain size, which in turn determines intelligence and the capacity for "moral behaviour". There is no empirical evidence for this, but this has not hindered people from making many preposterous claims. In particular, the Nazi regime made use of this dubious technique to distinguish between "Aryans" and "non-Aryans".
Worryingly, some individuals also wish to resort to eugenics (for example Mr Jean Govè on the recent Bondìplus, which I was able to watch via http://www.di-ve.com/ (http://www.di-ve.com/)). Eugenics involves tyrannical control over people's reproductive abilities.
It aims to "restrict" the gene pool by eliminating "undesirable" elements, which have variously included people of colour and people whose intellectual capabilities were considered sub-par. While such a concept is distasteful in itself, it is also worth noting again what our geneticists have pointed out, "genetic purity" is not biologically healthy.
On another level, no one has the right to determine which traits might be considered undesirable. Unlike Mr Govè, Mr Sciberras has not specifically mentioned eugenics, but his claims that there has been "no breeding with Africans" have odious undertones. I suggest that anyone interested in origins and genetics should have a look at the excellent book What it means to be 98% chimpanzee: Apes, people and their genes, by Jonathan Marks.
With reference to Mr Sciberas's attempt to explain the origins of humanity, his summary of the Out-of-Africa and the Multiregional (which he terms Regional Continuity Theory) models, fails to take into account that there are numerous versions of these two models, for example Fred Smith's Assimilation Hypothesis, which broadly falls under the Multiregional umbrella.
Be that as it may, neither model recognises the existence of any race as defined by Mr Lowell and his ilk. When a palaeonthropologist speaks of race, he/she is referring to anatomical variation over large geographical distances (also known as cline variation) and not to separate biological entities.
Contrary to Mr Sciberras's claims, the Multiregional model does not recognise parallel evolution (i.e. the appearance of similar anatomical characteristics in different places under different conditions through different processes, with an emphasis on difference). It is the Out-of-Africa supporters who, to a degree, recognise parallel evolution and use it as an argument against the former.
Additionally, there is disagreement over whether Homo erectus should be classified as a species according to phylogenetic or evolutionary species constructs. In practice, this means species are defined according to anatomical differences, as in the former, or according to a single lineage that maintains its anatomical identity distinct from other lineages over a long period of time.
This is not the place to give a detailed summary of evolutionary and palaeoanthropological studies. Milford Wolpoff's Palaeoanthropology, Richard Klein's The Human Career and Ernest Mayr's What Evolution Is should provide enough material as a starting point.
As a final note on this subject, what Mr Sciberras fails to point out is that both models recognise that the vast majority of our DNA comes from Africa - what is disputed is whether there were genetic contributions (and therefore a degree of interbreeding) between African and Eurasian Homo.
Having dispensed with the oversimplification of human evolutionary processes, I now turn your readers' attention to Mr Sciberras's attempt to link the Siberian site of Mal'ta (please note the spelling) and our fair isle, Malta. The simple act of misspelling it gives a very false impression to the reader.
The Siberian site dates to the middle stages of the Upper Palaeolithic, c.23,000 BC, although recent studies claim that some of the remains could date to even earlier. Both spatially and temporally, this is very far from the island of Malta and I join many archaeologists in assuring Mr Sciberras that despite the presumed similarities in nomenclature, there is no connection between the two.
Sites in Siberia and Russia are not identical to those found in Malta. For one thing, Malta has as yet not yielded any traces of the Palaeolithic, while the Neolithic sites in Eastern Europe are significantly different to those in Malta.
I strongly suggest that Mr Sciberras read Steven Mithen's After the Ice: A Global human history 20,000 to 5000 BC and Richard Klein's The Human Career. Since Mr Sciberras seems to be so interested in Siberian prehistory, might I recommend The Palaeolithic of Siberia: New Discoveries and Interpretations, by Anatoliy P. Derev'Anko, Demitri Boris Shimkin et al.
The first inhabitants of our fair isles came from Sicily, not Eastern Europe, and they date to the Holocene, not the Palaeolithic. This hypothesis is not simply based on geographical proximity, but also on similarity in what is often referred to as the Neolithic kit, which includes domesticated animals and plants, tools and pottery.
Radiocarbon dates from the village of Skorba in Mgarr place the first arrival of humans in Malta to c. 5000 BC. Two excellent, accessible books on Maltese prehistory are Anthony Bonanno's Il-Preistorja and David Trump's Malta: Prehistory and Temples.
At this point it is also worth noting that the Indo-European language arose during the Holocene, i.e. post-Upper Palaeolithic in northern India. This in itself rules out Indo-Europeans as being the occupants of the Mal'ta settlement in southern Siberia, whether one accepts a Multiregional or Out-of-Africa model.
As for the claimed proto-Nordic race, it is with regret that I inform Mr Sciberras that no such race existed; there is absolutely no biological or genetic entity as a pure "race".
With reference to the claim that after the Arab period we "interbred" within the European genetic framework, may I point out that there is absolutely no evidence for this, unless Mr Sciberras is aware of some ground-breaking studies he would like to share. May I also point out that while we were under the influence of Sicilian Arab Muslims, the cultural group known as the Arabs hail originally from the Near East, they subsequently migrated to North Africa and interbred with the local populations.
It should also be brought to the readers' attention that there is more genetic variation between relatively neighbouring populations within Africa than there is between Africans and the rest of the world. Any breeding between peoples from different continents is welcome to sustain the long-term viability and continuity of the peoples. Peoples have interbred for thousands of years. As any geneticist will point out, it is wise to continue to allow natural evolution to continue its course of biological evolution.
On a personal note, I wish to encourage more of our eminent scientists to continue to speak out and correct various misconceptions. May I also encourage the education authorities to strengthen general science education in Malta and the teaching of physical and cultural anthropology.
Knowledge is the most powerful tool a human being has. Armed with correct knowledge, we can swiftly quash any ridiculous claims of the type being made by Mr Lowell and his ilk. Coupled with a deeper understanding of human cultural difference, this will put an end to the many nonsensical claims currently making the rounds.
Ms Vella Gregory is reading for an M.Phil. in Archaeology at the University of Cambridge.
ON SCIENCE AND RACISM
Andrew Sciberras
I refer to the article by Ms. Isabelle Vella Gregory (The Sunday Times, Feb 20).
It’s becoming a trend that someone who expresses openly his views on this vast subject is being labelled as a racist. In her article, she twisted my references in a way that a different picture on the account of their intention was given.
In my previous letter, I gave a very brief summary of evolutionary and palaeoanthropological studies, since space in newspaper is limited.
I used only the term Aryan by meaning the noble builders.
Regarding the Siberian site of Malta I will elaborate further. The cult of the Great Mother Goddess, a thaumaturgic figure, has monopolized the attention of archaeological studies in Malta. Our world famous Hypogeum, recently restored with meticulous care, draws serious scholars and students. The importance of this site is so great that a similar site in Siberia discovered in 1928 was named ‘The Malta Settlement’.
Palaeolithic artifacts produced by the same people were found also all across the Caucasus, Crimea, Russia steppes, Siberia, the Altai and near the river Dnester. Female figurines from the Malta-Siberia dwellings are worthy of particular attention. They are exceptionally rare, early Palaeolith figurines wearing some form of garments. Found also are plates made from mammoth tusk, depicting a mammoth and snakes, as well as figurines of stylized flying birds. Arrow tips are also in the form of stylized birds, signifying the oneness of shooter target.
The artifacts at Kostenky I have more geometrical patterns, while a female figurine is very similar to The Maltese Goddess.
This whole era is Mondmensch. The female predominates: she is everywhere venerated. The temples themselves, like the splendid Mnajdra, are shaped like a Female displaying her vulva towards the rising sun at the winter solstice.
Ms. Isabelle Vella Gregory stated that Malta has as yet not yielded any traces of the Palaeolithic period. This is absolutely not true, because a Palaeolithic cave art in Ghar Hassan, teeth found at Ghar Dalam, Clactonian and microlithic flints from various sites prove the opposite. An interesting lecture on this subject, titled ‘Palaeolithic man and his environment in Malta’, was delivered a few years ago by Dr. C. Savona and Dr. A. Mifsud.
In my previous letter, there is no single reference stating that the latest inhabitants did not come here from Stentinello in Southeast Sicily around 5,000BC.
To create a scenario on these magnificent builders through the ages, one can read an interesting article that appeared in HERRA magazine, Rome, by Vittorio Di Cessare and Adriano Forgione. The work of Professor Walter B. Emery the famous Egyptologist, author of ‘Archaic Egypt’, also spreads light on this subject.
Regarding the prove of a biological race, I strongly suggest to Ms. Isabelle Vella Gregory to read the study of Nei and Roychoudhury (Mol. Bio. Evol. 10, 927-943, 1993).
A true fact, that anyone can’t deny, is that up to forty years ago Malta had only one black, and he was treated with dignity. Only in this context I stated that breeding with Africans is almost totally absent. If these facts will be interpreted as racism, then I will beg pardon.
Theories of human evolution
Isabelle Vella Gregory, Cambridge, UK.
With reference to Mr Andrew Sciberras's reply (The Sunday Times, March 6), I would like to note that I was making two points, the first being a correction of his inaccurate use of archaeology and palaeoanthropology, the second a general comment on recent trends of using pseudo-science to justify racism. In no way was I calling Mr Sciberras a racist and I apologise if I was misunderstood.
However, his summary of evolutionary studies was mostly incorrect and various key points were left out. The term Aryan has explicit racial tones and is not used in mainstream archaeology. Moreover, it is a cultural term, these peoples are already part of a biological population, the Caucasians.
I will not enter into a Goddess debate, although Mr Sciberras and anyone else who is interested are welcome to contact me privately on the matter. However, some points need to be corrected. The Siberian site was not named thus because of Malta (the island) and I am reliably informed by archaeologists who are specialists in that area that the two are pronounced very differently.
Regarding Palaeolithic artefacts, real and perceived similarities in style do not equate to the same people. A closer examination of the archaeological record (again, interested readers can discuss this with me in private) reveals important variations and similarities.
Mr Sciberras is harbouring notions of diffusionism as expressed by Vere Gordon-Childe, who applied aspects of Marxist methodology to understand and theorise about past peoples.
Moreover, female Palaeolithic (and indeed Neolithic) figurines are in no way rare in Central and Eastern Europe. These figurines have been the subject of extensive studies and indeed continue to feature prominently in many archaeological debates, notably at the University of Cambridge.
Regarding possible Palaeolithic traces in Malta, I am very much aware of the claims. However, nothing is yet certain. Like many other scholars, I await more rigorous studies and published results.
With reference to the study by Nei and Roychoudhury, a reference known to the majority of anthropology and archaeology students, Mr Sciberras seems to have only read the abstract. The paper is looking at divergences between human populations and it does not include Siberia among the Aryans. Mr Sciberras seems to be conflating historical notions of race with mainstream biological applications.
Since Mr Sciberras is very interested in this subject, I would suggest works by Alan Templeton, who writes in various journals, Harry Harpending and C. Loring Brace. Another excellent book which doubtless Mr Sciberras will find very interesting is by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata, Where do we come from? The molecular evidence for human descent.
Palaeolithic man in Malta
Antonio Magro, Qrendi,
I read with interest the articles of Mr Andrew Sciberras and Ms Isabelle Vella Gregory (The Sunday Times, March 6, 13).
Mr Sciberras quite rightly says that there is evidence of Palaeolithic man in Malta. It is also true that there are similarities between the Malta-Siberia site and the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum, but he does not prove that a continuity of culture occurred.
Let me quote from a lecture delivered by Dr Charles Savona-Ventura and Dr Anton Mifsud.
The presence of Palaeolithic man on the Maltese Islands during the late Upper Pleistocene is to be expected when one considers that the islands were connected to the mainland by a well-defined land bridge.
The culture of Palaeolithic man was based on a hunter-gatherer economy, and he would have been expected to follow the southern migration of the deer herds. Palaeolithic man with his hunter-gather culture was unlikely to leave a major impact on his environment, in contrast to the later Neolithic man who modified the environment to suit his needs.
One would expect only scraps of material evidence of the presence of Palaeolithic man on the small area covered by the Maltese Islands. Evidence of Palaeolithic man has been described from various sites in Central Europe. In Sicily there is ample evidence of Palaeolithic man and his culture.
Professor Emmanuel Anati in 1990 described a number of prehistoric cave paintings at Ghar Hasan. These paintings included various animal figures, an anthropo-zoological image, various handprints and a variety of ideograms.
Another probably Palaeolithic painting depicting a bull - an animal which was apparently considered to be sacred - was discovered at the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum. It is probable that the Hypogeum was a natural cave complex, which was used by Palaeolithic man during the Ice Age.
Later (neolithic) civilisations artificially enlarged the cave system for death cult practices. During the architectural modifications, Neolithic man came across the still considered sacred bull depiction. This earlier painting was respected and conserved so that the cave wall where the bull was depicted remained in its natural state and the painting was not covered with the red ochre wash which covers the rest of the cave.
Ironically, a Palaeolithic painting conserved by primitive Neolithic man was erased by "civilised man" in the 1980s. Fortunately, this example of cave art has been preserved in the form of photographs taken during the discovery. A number of microlithic flints dating to the Palaeolithic period were found in various sites of the island.
The population of Palaeolithic man on the Maltese Islands could not have been very numerous and thus Palaeolithic human skeletal remains are scanty. Furthermore, Palaeolithic man generally buried his dead in caves.
These are the skeletal remains excavated from Ghar Dalam cave floor deposits:
1. A human hand bone excavated by J.H. Cooke (1892) in Trench IV in association with Cervus remains.
2. A taurodontised human upper first molar [Ma2] excavated by C. Rizzo (1917) in Despott's Trench No. II (second layer). This same layer also yielded some phalanges and part of a skull in association with "bones of stag and of a small rodent, probably a vole".
3. A taurodontised first milk molar excavated by G. Despott (1917) in Trench II (third layer) in association with stag remains.
4. A tooth and some phalanges excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Middle Trench (second layer) in association with deer, hippopotamus and vole remains.
5. Seven teeth (two incisors, one a canine excavated from beneath a stalagmitic layer about half an inch thick), a metacarpal and a phalanx excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Middle Trench (third layer) in association with deer, hippopotami and elephant remains.
6. One molar excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Outer Trench (second layer) in association with deer remains.
7. A tooth excavated by G. Despott (1918-20) in Outer Trench (fourth layer) in association with deer, fox, wolf and hippopotamus.
8. Molar tooth excavated by G. Sinclair at a depth described as two feet lower than that of G. Despott.
9. A tooth [Ma 1] excavated by G. Caton Thompson (1923) in association with hippopotamus and deer, but this layer was described as 'unstratified' and may have been disturbed.
10. Third left taurodontised molar [Ma 7] excavated by J. Baldacchino (1936).
Is the Palaeolithic evidence secure?
Mevrick Spiteri, Mosta.
I read with great interest, the letters dealing with Palaeolithic man's remains in Malta was discussed.
I wish to make two points regarding Mr Magro's letter (The Sunday Times, March 20). The first is that by now prehistoric studies and evidences do securely push back the first human presence in Malta to circa 7,000 years ago. Palaeolithic cave art at Ghar Hasan, Clactonian and microlithic flints, and human remains in Ghar Dalam, tend to give the impression that humans were present in Malta at an earlier date. However, from all this evidence there is nothing yet which securely proves such an early human presence on the islands.
What archaeologists are saying is simply that there is no secure evidence for such findings. In fact Ms Isabelle Vella Gregory (The Sunday Times, March 13) herself did point out that: "Like many other scholars, [she] awaits more rigorous studies and published results."
The second point regards his reference to Palaeolithic cave art at Ghar Hasan and Hal Saflieni Hypogeum. The cave paintings at Ghar Hasan were then checked by Professor Bonanno and other archaeologists. It was claimed that due to the high currents within the cave, it was very difficult for these paintings to have survived, and that some designs are thought to have been the result of modern times.
On the other hand, the bull depiction at Hal Saflieni is dated to the Temple period: Saflieni/Tarxien phase. Besides, this depiction is not a completely isolated piece of art; other similar bull depictions, though carved in stone are found at Tarxien temple.
As regards the statement that Hal Saflieni was originally a natural cave, I ask: What archaeological evidence is there with which we could prove that at first the Hypogeum was a natural cave (i.e. pre-Temple Period)".
Evidence on Palaeolithic Man
Anton Magro, Qrendi.
With reference to Mevrick Spiteri's reply (The Sunday Times, March 27), in my previous letter I was making the point that there is a scientific ground to conclude that there is a strong case for the presence of Palaeolithic Man in Malta before the first Neolithic settlement.
As Mr Spiteri stated, various studies were performed on the Ghar Hasan cave paintings by archaeologists who came to different conclusions on data.
But some highly famous archaeologists concluded that the images identified at Ghar Hasan appertain, by way of style, analogy, graphic design and concept, to a horizon of hunter society and they definitely antedate the first Neolithic Maltese folk.
Regarding the Palaeolithic painting depicting a bull from the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum, everyone who is familiar with the subject knows that this painting was erased by 'civilised man' in the 1980s and no further study can be performed on it.
In addition to the Palaeolithic pattern of the Hypogeum bull as characterised by the lack of detail and the materials used (black manganese oxide), the red ochre used at the hypogeum has been found on scientific testing by Russian UNESCO representatives to be identical to the world famous Lascaux Palaeolithic paintings in France.
On the subject of human skeletal remains, the most discussed items in the collection are the two taurodont teeth and another tooth, which were excavated by Despott in 1917-20 from the Cervus layer at Ghar Dalam.
These teeth were repeatedly scientifically dated in 1952 and 1968, and while the Museums Department failed to publish the full results of these tests, the primary source of the tests indicated that these teeth may have been contemporaneous with the excavated deer bones, and thus datable to 18,000 years ago.
Similar dating results were obtained from two teeth excavated from the Hal Saflieni Hypogeum in 1952. In view of the suggested possible cultural admixture of skeletal remains in Maltese cave burial sites, it is suggested that some of the excavated material from these sites "could possibly belong to Palaeolithic man".
In particular, one must consider the skulls, which according to anthropologists and anatomists could have primitive features.
Finally, one may well question whether there was further cave art evidence of Palaeolithic man in Malta, which today has disappeared through the erosive effects of time.