posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem with all this black/native american/african/indian talk is that people confuse terms. First off, "Indian" is not an accurate term for the indigenous people of the Americas prior to European contact, as they had nothing to do with India the sub continent. It has nothing to do with their identity and/or history. Second, skin color, for ANYONE with an ounce of understanding, is something that varies among ALL populations on earth, especially those prior to European and North Asian contact. Therefore, native Americans had various complexions, from very dark to very light, as well as various features, from more Asian, to more Australian aborigine to more "african looking". That does not make them Africans, no more than Aborigines of Asia are Africans. Of course all of this is lost due to the hyper racialism of the whites who conquered the Americas and exterminated millions of native Americans. But that does not mean we need to persist in propagating such confusion.

PRIOR to the arrival of Europeans in America, there were and still are VERY dark elements of the native American population. SOME of them may have been the result of direct contact with African migrants, but MOST are descended from the ABORIGINAL populations who came to the Americas, most likely from Asia and were most likely black, like all other aborigines. Over time, succeeding waves of migrants of various complexions arrived and added to the diversity in the populations. When Europeans arrived, they too began to add their own mark to native American populations, as Europeans fathered many a child among the native women. Not only that but there were also native groups who had substantial interaction with African populations introduced to the Americas by the Europeans. However, NONE of this changes the fact that the native populations, PRIOR to their extinction were QUITE diverse and the arrival of Europeans put an end to these populations AND that diversity.

---

quote:

---

My source:
"The traditional path across the Bering Strait is still the most plausible explanation for the entry of this non-Mongoloid population into the New World, if we assume that it was present in Northern Asia at the end of the Pleistocene." And indeed, Japan's aborigines, of whom a few still live in Hokkaido and on the Kurile Islands, display some Australian traits, such as round eye sockets and abundant body hair.

---

quote:

---

From Mikes own source:
Lahr (1995) has reached a conclusion similar to ours when studying the cranial morphology of modern Fuegians. She realized that the morphology of modern Indians of Tierra del Fuego could not be described as typical Mongoloid as well. Since she detected a close association between historic ****Fuegians and Polynesians**** she opted to interpret the cranial morphology of the former as generalized Mongoloid, at best. In her opinion this generalized Mongoloid morphology could be explained as a retention of characteristics of the first inhabitants of the Americas.

---

quote:

---

Froms Mikes own source:
As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.*** In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).

---

quote:

---

My source:
In this study, 74 human skulls dated between 11.0 and 3.0 kyr, recovered in seven different sites of Sabana de Bogotá, Colombia, were compared with the world cranial variation by different multivariate techniques: Principal Components Analysis, Multidimensional Scaling, and Cluster of Mahalanobis distance matrices. The Colombian skeletal remains were divided in two chronological subgroups: Paleocolombians (11.0-6.0 kyr) and Archaic Colombians (5.0-3.0 kyr). Both quantitative techniques generated convergent results: ****the Paleocolombians show remarkable similarities with Lagoa Santa and ****with modern Australo-Melanesians**** . Archaic Colombians exhibited the same morphological patterns and associations. ***These findings support our long-held proposition that the early American settlement may have involved ****two very distinct biological populations coming from Asia****. On the other hand, they suggest the possibility of late survivals of the Paleoamerican pattern not restricted to isolated or marginal areas, as previously thought. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

---

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem with all this black/native american/african/indian talk is that people confuse terms. First off, "Indian" is not an accurate term for the indigenous people of the Americas prior to European contact, as they had nothing to do with India the sub continent. It has nothing to do with their identity and/or history. Second, skin color, for ANYONE with an ounce of understanding, is something that varies among ALL populations on earth, especially those prior to European and North Asian contact. Therefore, native Americans had various complexions, from very dark to very light, as well as various features, from more Asian, to more Australian aborigine to more "african looking". That does not make them Africans, no more than Aborigines of Asia are Africans. Of course all of this is lost due to the hyper racialism of the whites who conquered the Americas and exterminated millions of native Americans. But that does not mean we need to persist in propagating such confusion.

PRIOR to the arrival of Europeans in America, there were and still are VERY dark elements of the native American population. SOME of them may have been the result of direct contact with African migrants, but MOST are descended from the ABORIGINAL populations who came to the Americas, most likely from Asia and were most likely black, like all other aborigines. Over time, succeeding waves of migrants of various complexions arrived and added to the diversity in the populations. When Europeans arrived, they too began to add their own mark to native American populations, as Europeans fathered many a child among the native women. Not only that but there were also native groups who had substantial interaction with African populations introduced to the Americas by the Europeans. However, NONE of this changes the fact that the native populations, PRIOR to their extinction were QUITE diverse and the arrival of Europeans put an end to these populations AND that diversity.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Knowledge, again I ask why do you waste your time engagin folks with no scientific understanding not even of the very sources they cite??!

---

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Moreover, the fact that he called these Native Americans Negroes is quite interesting and has been confirmed over the years that they were not of slave ancestry given the antiquity of the artifacts found in these regions dating to prehistoric times.

---

quote:

---

My source:
"The traditional path across the Bering Strait is still the most plausible explanation for the entry of this non-Mongoloid population into the New World, if we assume that it was present in Northern Asia at the end of the Pleistocene." And indeed, Japan's aborigines, of whom a few still live in Hokkaido and on the Kurile Islands, display some Australian traits, such as round eye sockets and abundant body hair.

---

quote:

---

From Mikes own source:
Lahr (1995) has reached a conclusion similar to ours when studying the cranial morphology of modern Fuegians. She realized that the morphology of modern Indians of Tierra del Fuego could not be described as typical Mongoloid as well. Since she detected a close association between historic ****Fuegians and Polynesians**** she opted to interpret the cranial morphology of the former as generalized Mongoloid, at best. In her opinion this generalized Mongoloid morphology could be explained as a retention of characteristics of the first inhabitants of the Americas.

---

quote:

---

Froms Mikes own source:
As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.*** In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).

---

quote:

---

My source:
In this study, 74 human skulls dated between 11.0 and 3.0 kyr, recovered in seven different sites of Sabana de Bogotá, Colombia, were compared with the world cranial variation by different multivariate techniques: Principal Components Analysis, Multidimensional Scaling, and Cluster of Mahalanobis distance matrices. The Colombian skeletal remains were divided in two chronological subgroups: Paleocolombians (11.0-6.0 kyr) and Archaic Colombians (5.0-3.0 kyr). Both quantitative techniques generated convergent results: ****the Paleocolombians show remarkable similarities with Lagoa Santa and ****with modern Australo-Melanesians**** . Archaic Colombians exhibited the same morphological patterns and associations. ***These findings support our long-held proposition that the early American settlement may have involved ****two very distinct biological populations coming from Asia****. On the other hand, they suggest the possibility of late survivals of the Paleoamerican pattern not restricted to isolated or marginal areas, as previously thought. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

---

-------------------

"AFRICAN-NATIVE AMERICANS : WE ARE STILL HERE" is based on an exhibit, curated by Ms. Eve Winddancer and with photos by Mr. Louis B. Myers, at the William and Anita Newman Library, 3rd fl.

http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/DIGITAL/native/native_thumbs.htm





Many people believe racial and ethnic groups in North America have always lived as separately as they do now. However, segregation was neither practical nor preferable when people who were not native to this continent began arriving here. Europeans needed Indians as guides, trade partners and military allies. They needed Africans to tend their crops and to build an infrastructure.


Later, as the new American government began to thrive, laws were drafted to protect the land and property the colonists had acquired. These laws strengthened the powers of slave owners, limited the rights of free Africans and barred most Indian rights altogether. Today, black, white and red Americans still feel the aftershock of those laws.

In order to enforce the new laws, Indians and Africans had to be distinguished from Europeans. Government census takers began visiting Indian communities east of the Mississippi River in the late 1700s and continued their task of identifying, categorizing, and counting individuals and "tribes" well into the 20th century. In the earlier days of this process, Native American communities that were found to be ***harboring escaped African slaves*** were threatened with loss of their tribal status, thereby nullifying their treaties with the U.S. government and relinquishing all claims to their land.


Despite the restrictions imposed by the U.S. government, Indians and Africans still managed to form close bonds. Some Native American communities ignored the laws and continued to aid fleeing African slaves. Some free Africans aided displaced Indians. Sometimes the two groups came together in "prayer towns" -- European communities that welcomed and protected converts to Christianity, regardless of race. Sometimes, Indian women married African men when the number of men in their own communities was decimated by war or natural disaster. Some Native Americans listed themselves as "Negro" or "mixed" in order to retain ownership of their land.

DID YOU KNOW ???
At the time of Columbus, the subcontinent of India was referred to as Hindustan or the Deccan. The European term for indigenous peoples all over the world was "Indians" from the Spanish "In Dios" meaning "God's people".




Some Native Americans refused to sign the census rolls during the 18th and 19th centuries, some refused to register with the Bureau of Indian Affairs or to allow themselves to be "removed" to "Indian Territory" in Oklahoma during the 1800s. As a result, many of their descendants grew up in urban environments instead of on reservations. This isn't the image of Native American experience most people carry in their heads but, in this part of the country, it is quite prevalent.


There are no villages tucked away in Suffolk county -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- where people live in teepees, hunt with bows and arrows and cook over open fires. Our lives reflect the same diversity as any other cultural group in America. We are wealthy, middle class and impoverished. We are educated and ignorant. We are employed and unemployed. We are Americans.


What sets American Indian cultures apart from many others is our attitude toward life. Simply stated, we believe we were not born ON this Earth, we were born OF this Earth. In other words, the Earth is our mother and we would no sooner mistreat her than you would the woman who raised you. This is the primary ingredient in the cultural glue that holds us all together.



Hollywood has taught us to associate the facial features you see here with red skin and sweeping Southwestern vistas, yet these people have skin tones that range from coffee to cream and most live in the New York metropolitan area. They are of African descent but they are also Blackfoot, Canarsie, Caribe, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Lenape, Matinecock, Mohawk, Munsee, Ramapo, Shinnecock, Seminole, Unkechaug, Taino. They have spiritual names in addition to the names that appear on their birth certificates; they dance at powwows wearing full regalia; they have naming ceremonies for their children. Some of them speak indigenous languages, some fast on the full moon in accordance with ancient religious beliefs, and all are extremely proud of their mixed heritage. They embody the intertwining of two of America's most stalwart and dynamic ethnic communities.



DID YOU KNOW ???
The first slaves in the "New World" were Indians. However, colonists found them difficult to contain -- they knew the surrounding countryside and those who had not been captured often organized successful rescue efforts. For a time, slave merchants continued to raid Native American communities along the central and southern shores of the Eastern Seaboard and to encourage local warriors to barter captives they would otherwise kill for European trade goods. The women and children the merchants acquired were sold alongside Africans to buyers in the north while the men were shipped to plantations in the Caribbean.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The problem with all this black/native american/african/indian talk is that people confuse terms. First off, "Indian" is not an accurate term for the indigenous people of the Americas prior to European contact, as they had nothing to do with India the sub continent. It has nothing to do with their identity and/or history. Second, skin color, for ANYONE with an ounce of understanding, is something that varies among ALL populations on earth, especially those prior to European and North Asian contact. Therefore, native Americans had various complexions, from very dark to very light, as well as various features, from more Asian, to more Australian aborigine to more "african looking". That does not make them Africans, no more than Aborigines of Asia are Africans. Of course all of this is lost due to the hyper racialism of the whites who conquered the Americas and exterminated millions of native Americans. But that does not mean we need to persist in propagating such confusion.

PRIOR to the arrival of Europeans in America, there were and still are VERY dark elements of the native American population. SOME of them may have been the result of direct contact with African migrants, but MOST are descended from the ABORIGINAL populations who came to the Americas, most likely from Asia and were most likely black, like all other aborigines. Over time, succeeding waves of migrants of various complexions arrived and added to the diversity in the populations. When Europeans arrived, they too began to add their own mark to native American populations, as Europeans fathered many a child among the native women. Not only that but there were also native groups who had substantial interaction with African populations introduced to the Americas by the Europeans. However, NONE of this changes the fact that the native populations, PRIOR to their extinction were QUITE diverse and the arrival of Europeans put an end to these populations AND that diversity.

---

Doug you keep mixing dark complexion with being a Negro. This is not what we are talking about.Here we are talking about the Negro/African race.

Quatrefages was one of the leading anthropologists of the 19th century. When he classified an indivual as a Negro he was refering to Africans not dark skinned native Americans. As a result, when he identified the Chantal, and other groups as Blacks/Negores he was saying that they were African Indians, not Asian Indians.

Moreover, the fact that he called these Native Americans Negroes is quite interesting and has been confirmed over the years that they were not of slave ancestry given the antiquity of the artifacts found in these regions dating to prehistoric times.

---

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

My source:
"The traditional path across the Bering Strait is still the most plausible explanation for the entry of this non-Mongoloid population into the New World, if we assume that it was present in Northern Asia at the end of the Pleistocene." And indeed, Japan's aborigines, of whom a few still live in Hokkaido and on the Kurile Islands, display some Australian traits, such as round eye sockets and abundant body hair.

---

quote:

---

From Mikes own source:
Lahr (1995) has reached a conclusion similar to ours when studying the cranial morphology of modern Fuegians. She realized that the morphology of modern Indians of Tierra del Fuego could not be described as typical Mongoloid as well. Since she detected a close association between historic ****Fuegians and Polynesians**** she opted to interpret the cranial morphology of the former as generalized Mongoloid, at best. In her opinion this generalized Mongoloid morphology could be explained as a retention of characteristics of the first inhabitants of the Americas.

---

quote:

---

Froms Mikes own source:
As to the similarities with Africans, the best way to explain it in terms of historical connections, is to assume that the Asian ancestral population that gave rise to the Australians and to the first Americans had its ultimate origins in the African continent, as it is in fact the case with all modern humans (Stringer and Andrews, 1988; Stringer and McKie, 1996; Lahr, 1994, 1996), ***but which retained a very generalized morphology.*** In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications without great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).

---

quote:

---

My source:
In this study, 74 human skulls dated between 11.0 and 3.0 kyr, recovered in seven different sites of Sabana de Bogotá, Colombia, were compared with the world cranial variation by different multivariate techniques: Principal Components Analysis, Multidimensional Scaling, and Cluster of Mahalanobis distance matrices. The Colombian skeletal remains were divided in two chronological subgroups: Paleocolombians (11.0-6.0 kyr) and Archaic Colombians (5.0-3.0 kyr). Both quantitative techniques generated convergent results: ****the Paleocolombians show remarkable similarities with Lagoa Santa and ****with modern Australo-Melanesians**** . Archaic Colombians exhibited the same morphological patterns and associations. ***These findings support our long-held proposition that the early American settlement may have involved ****two very distinct biological populations coming from Asia****. On the other hand, they suggest the possibility of late survivals of the Paleoamerican pattern not restricted to isolated or marginal areas, as previously thought. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

---

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Many members of this forum have been brainwashed by revisionist history which “whites out” the ancient original Black inhabitants in the Americas. A de Quatrefages in L ‘Etudes des Races Humaines (1889) noted how the Atlantic currents probably carried naby Africans to the Americas. He observed:

quote:

---

One should seek to explain it, how [b]Balboa could have found an isolated Negro tribe in the midst of the indigenous population of the Darien Isthmus [Panama]; how the island of Saint Vincent had black Caribbeans before the importation of the first Negroes to the Antilles; how the Yamassis of Florida and the Charuas had the same colony; how black men coming from the east could have reached the Indies as it was reported in the Peruvian traditions. (pp.406-407)

---

These Indians came from Africa, not Asia.


.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Anthropology supports the presence of Blacks in America when Columbus arrived in the region.Quatrefages in The Human Species , include the Choco, Manabis, Yaruras, Guarani, Charruas, Othomi (Otomi), Yamassi, Tzendal/Chontal, the Mandinga(a member of the Cunan group of Mexico), the Blacks of Quareca and numerous tribes along the Orinoco river in Venezuela and the Isthmus of Darien; not to mention the Black tribes of the United States southwest including a tribe reported by Cabeza de Vaca called Mandicas (< Mandinka).

The Otomi and Caribe spoke a Manding language. The major center for
the Manding was Panama. The major Amerindian group in this area was the Cunan group.

Mike’s posting of the pictures below support the work of Quatrefages.


Central America:





South America:





It is interesting that in every area Quatrefages said Negores formerly existed we see artifacts dating hundreds of years support his report.

.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Titre du document / Document title
Early population differentiation in extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia: Ancient mtDNA sequences and Y-chromosome STR characterization = Différentiation des populations anciennes chez les aborigènes éteints de la Patagonie-Terre de Feu : Séquences d'ADNmt et caractérisation STR du chromosome Y
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
GARCIA-BOUR Jaume (1) ; PEREZ-PEREZ Alejandro (1) ; ALVAREZ Sara (1) ; FERNANDEZ Eva (1) ; LOPEZ-PARRA Ana Maria (1 2) ; ARROYO-PARDO Eduardo (1 2) ; TURBON Daniel (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Secció d'Antropologia, Departament de Biologia Animal, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, ESPAGNE
(2) Laboratorio de Biologia Forense, Departamento de Toxicología y Legislación Sanitaria, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, ESPAGNE
Résumé / Abstract
Ancient mtDNA was succesfully recovered from 24 skeletal samples of a total of 60 ancient individuals from Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego, dated to 100-400 years BP, for which consistent amplifications and two-strand sequences were obtained. Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) and the biallelic system DYS199 were also amplified, Y-STR alleles could be characterized in nine cases, with an average of 4.1 loci per sample correctly typed. In two samples of the same ethnic group (Aonikenk), an identical and complete eight-loci haplotype was recovered. The DYS199 biallelic system was used as a control of contamination by modern DNA and, along with DYS19, as a marker of American origin. The analysis of both mtDNA and Y-STRs revealed DNA from Amerindian ancestry. The observed polymorphisms are consistent with the hypothesis that the ancient Fuegians are close to populations from south-central Chile and Argentina, but their high nucleotide diversity and the frequency of single lineages strongly support early genetic differentiation of the Fuegians through combined processes of population bottleneck, isolation, and/or migration, followed by strong genetic drift. This suggests an early genetic diversification of the Fuegians right after their arrival at the southernmost extreme of South America.
Revue / Journal Title
American journal of physical anthropology ISSN 0002-9483
Source / Source
2004, vol. 123, no4, pp. 361-370 [10 page(s) (article)] (47 ref.)

---

quote:

---

Diversity of Y-STR haplotypes of chromosomes belonging to hgA1 and within the R surname. (a) Relationships of Y-STR haplotypes within hgA1. Weighted median joining network containing the 10-locus Y-STR haplotypes (DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS389II-I) of eleven hgA1 chromosomes. Circles represent haplotypes, with area proportional to frequency and colored according to population.

European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 288–293. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201771; published online 24 January 2007
Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy
Turi E King1

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v15/n3/full/5201771a.html

---

quote:

---

DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388

---

quote:

---

DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS389II-I

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grumman:
It's okay Prmiddleeastern, Knowledgeiskey, you two can hold hands with Djehuti and dance around the campfire until all that related black blood ceases to exist. This way when the 'white' boys come by you can tell them all about your inner thoughts and frustrations and how you're truly related to blacks but you ain't related to blacks no mo'.

---

Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by meninarmer:
This report and population migration out of Africa simulation follows SMP OOA.
Nice movie showing migration patterns developed by tracing SNP data.
However, the authors attribute Bantu and Tuscan donors to Mayans due to post-Columbian admixture.

Inferring Human Colonization History Using a Copying Model

Would be nicer had they included time frames with each slide, but they are included in the report.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
^^^^^That's the whole point, they're a bunch of idiots who don't understand OOA, which is why we have thread such as whites are new to Europe from Medieval times, and a pansy claiming whites are African albinos who recently migrated into Europe to mix with native Europeans and African Europeans, to create whites.

---

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
^^^^^That's the whole point, they're a bunch of idiots who don't understand OOA, which is why we have thread such as whites are new to Europe from Medieval times, and a pansy claiming whites are African albinos who recently migrated into Europe to mix with native Europeans and African Europeans, to create whites.

---

Or that blacks in the Americas must be bantus and recent Africans as opposed to the descendants of the Aboriginal black Asians who first migrated there.

Of course, there were direct migrations from Africa to the Americas over the last 40,000 years of history. However, those direct migrations did not have the impact in terms of population that the migrations from Asia did and the FIRST migrations were still predominantly black to begin with. Trying to prove that there were SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT migrations from Africa to the Americas is a COMPLETELY separate idea from the FACT that the aboriginal stock of Asia AND America was BLACK to begin with. Therefore the presence of black Native Americans does not PROVE that there were DIRECT migrations from Africa to the Americas. That is the ONLY way you could call black native Americans Africans. Otherwise, they are simply Native Americans, not AFRICANS.

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
^^^^^That's the whole point, they're a bunch of idiots who don't understand OOA, which is why we have thread such as whites are new to Europe from Medieval times, and a pansy claiming whites are African albinos who recently migrated into Europe to mix with native Europeans and African Europeans, to create whites.

---

Or that blacks in the Americas must be bantus and recent Africans as opposed to the descendants of the Aboriginal black Asians who first migrated there.

Of course, there were direct migrations from Africa to the Americas over the last 40,000 years of history. However, those direct migrations did not have the impact in terms of population that the migrations from Asia did and the FIRST migrations were still predominantly black to begin with. Trying to prove that there were SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT migrations from Africa to the Americas is a COMPLETELY separate idea from the FACT that the aboriginal stock of Asia AND America was BLACK to begin with. Therefore the presence of black Native Americans does not PROVE that there were DIRECT migrations from Africa to the Americas. That is the ONLY way you could call black native Americans Africans. Otherwise, they are simply Native Americans, not AFRICANS.

---

This is a stupid answer. If you can call the contemporary Native Americans Asians since they probably originated in Siberia, calling the Black native Americans Africans would be the most appropriate designation of the original settlers of the Americas since they came from Africa and not Asia.

This results from the fact that the earliest Americans dating to 30,000 BC are found on the East Coast of the Americas. People did not begin crossing the Beringa until after 12kya. As a result these Americans can not be related to the Asian Blacks who would have entered the Americas 20,000 years after the first Blacks got here from Africa.


.

---

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

• Warwick Bray,"The Paleoindian debate". Nature 332, (10 March) 1988, p.107.
  
  "Man's New World arrival Pushed back", Chicago Tribune, (9 May 1991) Sec.1A, p.40;and A.L. Bryan, "Points of Order". Natural History , (June 1987) pp.7-11.
  
  P.S. Martin and R.G.Klein (eds.),Quarternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, (Tucson:University of Arizona Press,1989) p.111.
  
  M.Ruhlen,"Voices from the Past". Natural History, (March 1987) pp.6-10:10; J.H. Greenberg,Language in the Americas. Stanford:Stanford University Press,1987.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.

The last glaciation centered on the huge ice sheets of North America and Eurasia. Considerable areas in the Alps, the Himalaya and the Andes were ice-covered, and Antarctica remained glaciated.

Canada was nearly completely covered by ice, as well as the northern part of the USA, both blanketed by the huge Laurentide ice sheet. Alaska remained mostly ice free due to arid climate conditions. Local glaciations existed in the Rocky Mountains, the Cordilleran ice sheet and as ice fields and ice caps in the Sierra Nevada in northern California.[1] In Britain, mainland Europe and northwestern Asia, the Scandinavian ice sheet once again reached the northern parts of the British Isles, Germany, Poland and Russia, extending as far east as the Taimyr Peninsula in western Siberia.[2] Maximum extent of western Siberian glaciation was approximately 18,000 to 17,000 BP and thus later than in Europe (22,000 - 18,000 BP).[3] Northeastern Siberia was not covered by a continental-scale ice sheet.[4] Instead, large, but restricted, icefield complexes covered mountain ranges within northeast Siberia, including the Kamchatka-Koryak Mountains.[5]
The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen throughout, but like today probably was only covered by relatively thin ice, subject to seasonal changes and riddled with icebergs calving from the surrounding ice sheets. According to the sediment composition retrieved from deep-sea cores there must even have been times of seasonally open waters.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation

---

How did these Siberians migrate across the ice and settle North America.

As pointed out above Negroes had been in Mexico and South America since 26,000 BC. Moreover Luizia was already in Brazil as was Eva Neharon.


The latest research discussed above make it clear that neither Luizia , Eva Neharon and the ancient skeletons found off the Yucatan coast came across the Bering strait .

As illustrated above the most ancient civilizations of Mexico like the Ocos were Negroes like Luiza and Eva Neharon, not Amerind.



A cursory examination of the pattern of currents in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans would make a voyage from Africa much easier than a voyage from Asia.

Moreover, any one attempting to make their way along a Pacific coastal sailing route would have been confronted by terrible weather 15,000 years ago.




Note the ice in the Beringa region and the end point for many currents in the Pacific.

Also note that ice sheets would have made it very difficult to make your way from the east coast of South America to the Atlantic side.

Travel across the Atlantic, on the otherhand would have been more easier and the weather would have been much better.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Oldest Skeleton in Americas Found in Underwater Cave?
Eliza Barclay
for National Geographic News

September 3, 2008

Deep inside an underwater cave in Mexico, archaeologists may have discovered the oldest human skeleton ever found in the Americas.

Dubbed Eva de Naharon, or Eve of Naharon, the female skeleton has been dated at 13,600 years old. If that age is accurate, the skeleton—along with three others found in underwater caves along the Caribbean coast of the Yucatán Peninsula—could provide new clues to how the Americas were first populated.

The remains have been excavated over the past four years near the town of Tulum, about 80 miles southwest of Cancún, by a team of scientists led by Arturo González, director of the Desert Museum in Saltillo, Mexico (see map of Mexico).

"We don't now how [the people whose remains were found in the caves] arrived and whether they came from the Atlantic, the jungle, or inside the continent," González said.

"But we believe these finds are the oldest yet to be found in the Americas and may influence our theories of how the first people arrived."

In addition to possibly altering the time line of human settlement in the Americas, the remains may cause experts to rethink where the first Americans came from, González added.

Clues from the skeletons' skulls hint that the people may not be of northern Asian descent, which would contradict the dominant theory of New World settlement. That theory holds that ancient humans first came to North America from northern Asia via a now submerged land bridge across the Bering Sea (see an interactive map of ancient human migration).

"The shape of the skulls has led us to believe that Eva and the others have more of an affinity with people from South Asia than North Asia," González explained.

Concepción Jiménez, director of physical anthropology at Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History, has viewed the finds and says they may be Mexico's oldest and most important human remains to date.

"Eva de Naharon has the Paleo-Indian characteristics that make the date seem very plausible," Jiménez said.

Ancient Floods, Giant Animals

The three other skeletons excavated in the caves have been given a date range of 11,000 to 14,000 years ago, based on radiocarbon dating.

Radiocarbon dating measures the age of organic materials based on their content of the radioactive isotope carbon 14.

According to archaeologist David Anderson of the University of Tennessee, however, minerals in seawater can sometimes alter the carbon 14 content of bones, resulting in inaccurate radiocarbon dating results.

The remains were found some 50 feet (15 meters) below sea level in the caves off Tulum. But at the time Eve of Naharon is believed to have lived there, sea levels were 200 feet (60 meters) lower, and the Yucatán Peninsula was a wide, dry prairie.

The polar ice caps melted dramatically 8,000 to 9,000 years ago, causing sea levels to rise hundreds of feet and submerging the burial grounds of the skeletons. Stalactites and stalagmites then grew around the remains, preventing them from being washed out to sea.

González has also found remains of elephants, giant sloths, and other ancient fauna in the caves.

(Learn more about how caves form.)

Human Migration Theories

If González's finds do stand up to scientific scrutiny, they will raise many interesting new questions about how the Americas were first peopled.

Many researchers once believed humans entered the New World from Asia as a single group crossing over the Bering Land Bridge no earlier than 13,500 years ago. But that theory is lately being debunked.

Remains found in Monte Verde, Chile, in 1997, for example, point to the presence of people in the Americas at least 12,500 years ago, long before migration would have been possible through the ice-covered Arctic reaches of North America.

(Related: "Clovis People Not First Americans, Study Shows" [February 23, 2007].)

Confirmation of Eve of Naharon's age could further revolutionize the thinking about the settlement of the Americas.

This September, González will begin excavating the fourth skeleton, known as Chan hol, which he says could be even older than Eve.

The Chan hol remains include more than ten teeth, which will allow researchers to date the specimen and gather information about Chan hol's diet.

"When we learn more about the [Mexican finds] we'll be able to better evaluate them," said Carlos Lorenzo, a researcher at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili in Tarragona, Spain, an expert on the subject who was not involved in the current study.

"But in any case, if it's confirmed that Eva de Naharon is 13,000 years old, it will be a fantastic and extraordinary finding for understanding the first settlers of America."

González said he and his team hope to publish the full results of their analysis after the excavation of the fourth skeleton.

"We're not yet in the phase of research of determining how they arrived," he said. "But when we have more evidence we may be able to determine that."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/65445213.html

---

quote:

---

USA 28,000-25,000 14C y.a.
This vegetation map showing the eastern USA during the period 28,000-25,000 14C y.a. has been compiled by Paul & Hazel Delcourt. An ice sheet already covered most of Canada and extended south of the Great Lakes. Boreal conifer woodlands and forests predominated in what is now the cool temperate forest zone, and the cool and warm temperate forest belts were compressed southwards.


http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html

---

quote:

---

—Patagonia was the world's last place to be colonized by humans. In Arica there have been found remains of 9,000 years; the same in a place at the High Aconcagua and Huentelauquén. In Chile we have more than half of the continent's most ancient human skeletons, all well dated and documented.

http://www.nuestro.cl/eng/stories/recovery/franciscomena_patagonia.htm

---

quote:

---

Archaeologists believe they have discovered a 13,600-year-old human skeleton deep in a Caribbean underwater cave, making it the oldest ever found in the Americas. The discovery could have profound effects on theories of how humans first reached North America.

The female skeleton, called Eve of Naharon, was found with three other human skeletons in underwater caves along the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula. Excavation of a fourth skeleton – possibly even older than Eve – begins this month in a nearby cave.


The three other skeletons found with Eve have been radiocarbon-dated from 11,000 to 14,000 years ago.

All were found in underwater caves about 50 feet below the surface. At the time Eve and the others would have lived there, the sea level was about 200 feet lower, and the Yucatan Peninsula was a dry prairie. Melting of the polar ice caps 9,000 years ago submerged the burial ground and the subsequent growth of stalactites and stalagmites kept the skeletons from being washed out to sea.

http://ancient-tides.blogspot.com/2008/09/oldest-skeleton-could-revamp-migration.html

---

In 1959 archaeologists found the Penon woman skeleton at Mexico City.

[/b] Penon Woman[/b]




Penon woman has been characterized as a Negro and is physically different from Native Americans. The Penon skeleton has been dated between 12,500-15,000BP. The skull of Penon woman is dolichocephalic like most Negroes, not brachysephalic (short and braod) like modern Native Americans. She is related to the Fuegians of Parana Argentina and the Luizia population of Brazil.

Here we have a comparison of ancient skulls found in the Americas.

[IMG]http://www.nerc.ac.uk/images/photos/skeleton-location-map.jpg [/IMG]



In the picture above we have three ancient American skulls. They are a) Penon woman (12.755 Ka), b) Texcal Man (9.5ka) and c) Pericue Indian (18th Century). If you look notice Pericue man shows broad features characteristic of the mongoloid type, while both Penon and Texcul do not.

Some researchers claim that these skeletons are of Australian or Melanesian Blacks. This is highly unlikely given the fact that that have been found near the Atlantic Ocean and suggestive of a migration from Africa to Mexico, like the migration of the Olmec 11,000 years later. This view is supported by the discovery of the so-called Eva Neharon skeleton (c.13,600 ) dating to around the same period found in the Caribbean.


By 11,500 we see the appearence tall Negroes from Africa in Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil e.g.,Luiza. Negroes settled America both from the Bearing & South America. Cite an archaeological site where Amerind skeletons have been found prior to the Negro skeletons.



Stop trying to steal the heritage of the Black people like the Olmecs, who represent the Mother Culture of Mexico.

--------------------
C. A. Winters

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

---

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the "last ice age", though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age may not yet have come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years.

The last glaciation centered on the huge ice sheets of North America and Eurasia. Considerable areas in the Alps, the Himalaya and the Andes were ice-covered, and Antarctica remained glaciated.

Canada was nearly completely covered by ice, as well as the northern part of the USA, both blanketed by the huge Laurentide ice sheet. Alaska remained mostly ice free due to arid climate conditions. Local glaciations existed in the Rocky Mountains, the Cordilleran ice sheet and as ice fields and ice caps in the Sierra Nevada in northern California.[1] In Britain, mainland Europe and northwestern Asia, the Scandinavian ice sheet once again reached the northern parts of the British Isles, Germany, Poland and Russia, extending as far east as the Taimyr Peninsula in western Siberia.[2] Maximum extent of western Siberian glaciation was approximately 18,000 to 17,000 BP and thus later than in Europe (22,000 - 18,000 BP).[3] Northeastern Siberia was not covered by a continental-scale ice sheet.[4] Instead, large, but restricted, icefield complexes covered mountain ranges within northeast Siberia, including the Kamchatka-Koryak Mountains.[5]

The Arctic Ocean between the huge ice sheets of America and Eurasia was not frozen throughout, but like today probably was only covered by relatively thin ice, subject to seasonal changes and riddled with icebergs calving from the surrounding ice sheets. According to the sediment composition retrieved from deep-sea cores there must even have been times of seasonally open waters.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_glaciation

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/showImageLarge.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1000078.g004

quote:

---

1. Sub-Saharan Africa. The first population in the ordering are the San, who are hunter gatherers that live in Southern Africa. Before the Bantu expansion over the last 3,000 years, the ancestors of the San occupied most of Southern Africa, but they have been progressively displaced and currently are restricted to a few pockets [17]. The San contributed ancestry to the next four populations (the Biaka Pygmies, Bantu from South Africa and Kenya, and Mbuti Pygmies) but none subsequent to that. The Bantu are inferred to have contributed to each subsequent African population.


8. The Americas. The Colombians are the first Amerind population. 47% of their ancestry can be traced via the Hazara, which is marginally less than typical East Asian populations such as the Han (54%) or Xibo (59%) (Movie S2, Table S3). However, within the descendents of the putative EastAsia bottleneck, their donor pool is diverse, implying that none of the populations in the sample provides a good proxy for the original group or groups that crossed the Bering straight. The Colombians also have French donors, which may reflect post-Colombian admixture. The second American population, the Pima, represents the first North American population. As well as using all 7 Colombians as donors, it uses 8 Mongolians and 4 Oroquen. Neither of these populations acted as donors to the Colombians, suggesting distinct colonization events from different sources. Subsequent American populations did not have any non-Amerind donors, except for the Mayans who have Bantu and Tuscan donors, presumably due to post-Columbian admixture [18].


web page

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

There is no mention in this article of these people being Australians the representatives of the OOA population.

This population living in Beringa would have entered the region around 30kya.

This was 30k years after the OOA event. Some of these people may have been Australian, but I would imagine most were Bushman types.

You see, by this time the Australians were mainly being pushed on to the Islands as the Bushman advanced across Asia.




These people would have been Grimaldi/Cro-Magnon people who lived in Siberia at this time.

quote:

---

Venus of Willendorf, Museum of Natural History, Vienna, 30,000BC:

The Venus of Willendorf was found by the researcher Szombathy on the 7th of August, 1908. It is made out of limestone and still has some signs of red pigmentation; it fits in the palm of a hand. It is one of the most obese representations of the Paleolithic statuary. She represents the Earth and its fertility and continuation of life, the Mother Goddess, the universal female principle even if it is in its most primitive conception. Women were recognized as the life-givers and sustainers. They were revered as priestesses. Upper Paleolithic female figures, such as this one are found from the Pyrenees Mountains to Siberia, indicating that East and West were once united in honoring the Goddess. The vast majority (over 90%) of human images from 30,000 to 5,000 B.C. are female.

http://www.saveoursacredskies.com/FemaleStargazers.html

---

.

This is a bushman or San.




Hottentot




As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.They would represent the people living in Siberia, who entered Alaska 10kya.

Venus Figurines



.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This expansion of the San people or Bushman into Europe as the Cro-Magnon/Grimaldi people match the maps outlining the peopling of
the world 40kya. See:web page

---

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

1. Sub-Saharan Africa. The first population in the ordering are the San, who are hunter gatherers that live in Southern Africa. Before the Bantu expansion over the last 3,000 years, the ancestors of the San occupied most of Southern Africa, but they have been progressively displaced and currently are restricted to a few pockets [17]. The San contributed ancestry to the next four populations (the Biaka Pygmies, Bantu from South Africa and Kenya, and Mbuti Pygmies) but none subsequent to that. The Bantu are inferred to have contributed to each subsequent African population.


8. The Americas. The Colombians are the first Amerind population. 47% of their ancestry can be traced via the Hazara, which is marginally less than typical East Asian populations such as the Han (54%) or Xibo (59%) (Movie S2, Table S3). However, within the descendents of the putative EastAsia bottleneck, their donor pool is diverse, implying that none of the populations in the sample provides a good proxy for the original group or groups that crossed the Bering straight. The Colombians also have French donors, which may reflect post-Colombian admixture. The second American population, the Pima, represents the first North American population. As well as using all 7 Colombians as donors, it uses 8 Mongolians and 4 Oroquen. Neither of these populations acted as donors to the Colombians, suggesting distinct colonization events from different sources. Subsequent American populations did not have any non-Amerind donors, except for the Mayans who have Bantu and Tuscan donors, presumably due to post-Columbian admixture [18].


web page

---

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


The slides 6-7 outline the migration of the Niger-Congo people from Nubia to West Africa.

Instead of the Maya being related to the Bantu as assumbed by the authors of this study I believe the relationship comes from the Mande speaking Olmecs and the Chontal Maya. Since Quatrefages said this tribe was Negro, their relationship to the Mande would explain the Mande substratum in the Mayan languages.

The most interesting thing about the map is that it indicates that the Maya were influenced by West Africans.

.

---

Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

You don’t know you’re talking about. There were no Melanesians until the rise of Sahulland.

You fails to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific.

Map 36 makes it clear that the Melanesians are not members of the OOA event. The Melanesians are related to the San not the Australians.


Tsuenehiko Hanihare discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations(1). Tsuenehiko classified these people into three major populations Southeast Asian Mongoloids (Polynesians), the Australians or Austroloid type and the Nicobar and Andaman (Melanoid) samples which he found lie between the predominately Southeast Asian and Australoid/Australian type (1).


The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranonical variates and represent two distinct Black populations(2). The Australoids or Australians live mainly in Australia and the highland regions of Oceania, the Melanoid people on the otherhand live in the coastal regions of Near Oceania and Fiji. D.J de Laubenfels discussed the variety of Blacks found in Asia. Laubenfiels explained that Negroids/Melanoids such as the Tasmanians are characterized by wooly black hair and sparse body hair (2). Australoids or Australians on the otherhand have curly, wavy or straight hair and abundant body hair. Other differences between these Black populations include Negroid / Melanoid brows being vertical and without eyebrow ridges, whereas Australoid brows are sloping and with prominent ridges (2).


This led M. Pietrusewky to recognize two separate colonizations of the Pacific by morphologically distinct populations one Polynesian and the other Melanesian (3). Pietrusewky’s research indicates a clear separation between the Australian-Melanesian crania and the Polynesian crania (3). The findings indicate an origin for the Polynesians in Southeast Asia (3-5), and an early Australo-Melanesian presence in East Asia as discussed in the earlier comment.


Laubenfels argues that the Australians are remnants of the original African migration to the region 60kya (2). This view is supported by David Bulbeck who found that the Australian craniometrics are different from the Mongoloid (Polynesian), and Melanoid crania metrics (4). This research indicates that whereas Australian aborigine crania agree with the archaic population of Asia and first group of Africans to exit Africa, they fail to correspond to the Sahulland crania which are distinctly of Southwest Pacific or Melanoid affinity (2,4). This suggests that by the rise of Sahulland there were two distinct Black populations in Asia one Austroloid and the other Melanoid (4).


The Melanesian type does not appear in East Asia (Siberia) until after 5000 BC. This is thousands of years after Luizia and Eva Neharon had existed in Brazil and Mexico respectively.

By the Neolithic the Melanoids or Papuans are associated with millet cultivation at Yangshao and Lougshan according to Pietrusewky’s work (5). Tsang argues that the probable homeland of the Austronesian speakers was the Pearl River delta, here the Melanoid people cultivated millet (6). Sagart believes that there is a Proto-Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian family of languages based on the millet culture the Melanoids introduced to China (7).

The craniometrics make it clear the ancient Americans are not related to the Melanesians.

• Reference:
  
  1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
  
  2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
  
  3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
  
  4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html
  
  5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
  
  6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
  
  7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Posted By Clyde:
This expansion of the San people or Bushman into Europe as the Cro-Magnon/Grimaldi people match the maps outlining the peopling of
the world 40kya.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Knowledge:
Clyde I've already explained the humans in Europe during the upper paleolithic, which most closely resemble Oceanic's than any other population, as for the San, well, you can read the below.....

---

quote:

---

Posted by Mike:
Knowledgeiskey718 - Would you care to explain to us how this article (which you referenced and linked) relates to what we are discussing. Please also show us where the San are mentioned. The Hofmeyr Skull has one completely irrelevant mention, which I hi-lighted

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070112104129.htm


In order to establish the affinities of the Hofmeyr fossil, team member Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, used 3-dimensional measurements of the skull known to differentiate recent human populations according to their geographic distributions and genetic relationships. She compared the Hofmeyr skull with contemporaneous Upper Paleolithic skulls from Europe and with the skulls of living humans from Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa, including the Khoe-San (Bushmen). Because the Khoe-San are represented in the recent archeological record of South Africa, they were expected to have close resemblances to the South African fossil. Instead, the Hofmeyr skull is quite distinct from recent sub-Saharan Africans, including the Khoe-San, and has a very close affinity with the European Upper Paleolithic specimens.

The field of paleoanthropology is known for its hotly contested debates, and one that has raged for years concerns the evolutionary origin of modern people. A number of genetic studies (especially those on the mitochondrial DNA) of living people indicate that modern humans evolved in sub-Saharan Africa and then left between 65,000 and 25,000 years ago to colonize the Old World. However, other genetic studies (generally on nuclear DNA) argue against this African origin and exodus model. Instead, they suggest that archaic non-African groups, such as the Neandertals, made significant contributions to the genomes of modern humans in Eurasia. Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.

The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.











Late Pleistocene Human Skull
from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and
Modern Human Origins

http://www.nycep.org/nmg/pdf/26.pdf


Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in
comparison to recent African crania in a number
of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately
thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall,
flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of
the maxilla; and comparatively large molar
crowns. Hofmeyr is contemporaneous with later
Eurasian Neandertals, but it clearly does not
evince the cranial and mandibular apomorphies
that define that clade (28). This is not surprising,
given its geographic location. Although Hofmeyr
is similar in size to Eurasian UP crania, it differs
from them in other respects (such as its broad nose
and continuous supraorbital tori).
In order to assess the phenetic affinities of
Hofmeyr to penecontemporaneous Eurasian UP
and recent humans, we conducted multivariate
morphometric analyses of 3D landmark coordinates
and linear measurements of crania
representing these populations. We digitized 19
3D coordinates of landmarks that represent as
fully as possible the currently preserved anatomy
of the Hofmeyr skull (table S4). These were
compared with homologous data for recent
human samples from five broad geographic areas
(North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Western
Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastern Asia/New World).
The sub-Saharan sample was divided into Bantuspeaking
(Mali and Kenya) and South African
Khoe-San samples. The latter are represented in
the Holocene archaeological record of the
subcontinent, and inasmuch as they are the oldest
historic indigenes of southern Africa, they might
be expected to have the closest affinity to
Hofmeyr (12). The North African sample consists
of Epipaleolithic (Mesolithic) individuals
that provide a temporal depth of approximately
10,000 years. The 3D data were also compared
for two Neandertal, four Eurasian UP, and one
Levantine early modern human fossils (table S5).
The landmark coordinate configurations for
each specimen were superimposed with the use
of generalized Procrustes analysis and analyzed
with a series of multivariate statistical techniques
(29).
Hofmeyr falls at the upper ends of the recent
sub-Saharan African sample ranges and within the
upper parts of all other recent human sample
ranges in terms of centroid size (fig. S6). In a
canonical variates analysis of these landmarks
(Fig. 2), axis 1 separates the sub-Saharan African
samples from the others, and axis 4 tends to
differentiate the UP specimens from recent
homologs. Hofmeyr clusters with the UP sample,
and although it falls within the recent human range
on both axes, it is outside the 95% confidence
ellipse for the Khoe-San sample and barely within
the limits of the other sub-Saharan African sample.
These canonical axes are weakly correlated with
centroid size, which emphasizes that the similarity
between Hofmeyr and the UP sample is due only
in small part to similarity in size.

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

You don’t know you’re talking about. There were no Melanesians until the rise of Sahulland.

---

quote:

---

*** In accordance with Lahr (1996), the Australians are in fact the contemporary aboriginal population that retained the most primitive morphology when compared to the first modern humans. As she stressed "Groups like [...] Australo-Melanesians are all examples of relatively early diversifications ****without**** great amounts of gene flow from other groups..." (Lahr, 1996, p.335).

---

Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged |