quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The Hofmeyr Skull
The Hofmeyr Skull is a 36 kya human skull specimen. The skull was found in 1952 at the coordinates in a dry channel bed of the Vlekpoort River, near Hofmeyr, a small town in Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Frederick E. Grine, an anthropologist and anatomist at State University of New York at Stony Brook, led the study. Grine says that he first noticed the skull on a bookshelf in a colleague's office in Cape Town, South Africa, and was inspired to reexamine the skull after noticing its likeness to the skulls of the first modern humans found in Europe.
The Hofmeyr fossil was compared with skulls from Sub-Saharan Africa, including those of the Khoisan, who are geographically proximate to the find. Using 3-dimensional measurement and mapping techniques, team member Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, found that the Hofmeyr Skull is actually quite distinct from those found in Sub-Saharan Africans such as the Khoisan. The skull's features were found however to have a very close affinity with Upper Paleolithic specimens from Eurasia.
The Upper Paleolithic (or Upper Palaeolithic) is the third and last subdivision of the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age as it is understood in Europe, Africa and Asia. Very broadly it dates to between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago.
So that instead of having this look; for the Khoisan Grimaldi (the first Humans to enter Europe):
You have this:
Or This:
As can be deduced from the fact that scientist had these busts of "original Europeans" made many years ago, Harvati offers nothing new. And I really don’t see how a slight change in appearance over 40,000 years makes a historical difference, but then again, your purpose was more likely just to keep things going in circles.
They most closely resembled Oceanic populations and not Khoisan, sorry kid.
Late Pleistocene Human Skull from Hofmeyr, South Africa, and Modern Human Origins
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 |
quote:You don’t know you’re talking about. There were no Melanesians until the rise of Sahulland.
Clyde you're delusional.
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 |
posted
Knowledgeiskey718 - You stupid little A-hole. STOP cluttering this thread up with postings that you do not understand. YOU introduced this nonsense with Hofmeyr, but what does Hofmeyr have to do with anything or anyone. NO one said Hofmeyr is typical of ANY population. Yet you keep posting on Hofmeyr as if it was the missing link. Then to add to your stupidity you post data on Hofmeyr that you obviously don't understand. Find something else to do, damn.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^Ad hominem and non sequiturs are for suckers. European upper Paleolithic Europeans resembled Oceanic populations, and the Khoisan as Clyde and you insist, Grimaldi/Khoisan were quite distinct from Hofmeyr. Hofmeyr skull which resembles early modern humans found in Europe and the near east.
What the data I posted shows you, if you understood anything, instead of the nonsense, Clyde feeds you, then you would've noticed the population that resembles Early modern humans 30-40kya are Oceanic populations.
To add to the above.....
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 |
The San have lived in southern Africa for thousands of years. Genetic studies suggest that the San may represent the oldest group of humans surviving on Earth. Their culture may also be one of the most ancient in the world. In 2006 a group of archaeologists claimed they had discovered evidence of rituals practiced by the San around 70,000 years ago—the oldest indications of human rituals ever found. The ancient artwork and artifacts were discovered in the Kalahari Desert in Botswana in a cave that the San have traditionally used for rites associated with the python, an animal that plays a major role in their creation stories.
(Lahr, 1996, p.335). Australo-Melanesians
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).
Hofmeyr
The research done on the Hofmeyr skull was done because the skull was UNIQUE – not typical of any other. Why the idiot decided to use it to make a case for other populations, when it is unique, can only be known by another idiot.
UP=Upper Paleolithic
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).
We sought to further assess the relationship between the Hofmeyr cranium and samples of various recent sub-Saharan Africans (n = 263) and Europeans (n = 24) and a small sample of UP Eurasians (n = 5), using eight linear dimensions of the face and cranial vault (table S7). The recent sub-Saharan African samples consisted of several Bantu-speaking groups that were combined because no significant differentiation among them was observed through analyses of variance. The craniofacial variableswere size-adjusted by transforming them into Z- and C-scores following Howells (11) and were analyzed by factor analysis with varimax rotation following Ribot (13). Analyses of variance of the regression factor scores indicate that factor 2 provided the greatest differentiation among the comparative samples. Therefore, this was used preferentially to identify the position of Hofmeyr vis-à-vis the 95% confidence ellipses of these samples. Hofmeyr is encompassed by the variation exhibited by Late Pleistocene Eurasian crania (Fig. 4). It is also encompassed by the 95% confidence ellipse of the recent Khoe-San and sub- Saharan Bantu-speaker samples, but falls just beyond the 95% confidence ellipse of recent Europeans. These observations are supported by the proximity matrix of squared Euclidean distances derived from the regression factor scores, which reveal the UP Eurasian sample as closest to Hofmeyr (table S8).
Hofmeyr and the UP Eurasian specimens tend to have comparatively high loadings on factor 2, which is indicative of a trend toward relatively longer crania with relatively shorter orbits than those in recent populations from these same geographic areas. This perhaps attests to a common trend for change in craniofacial shape over the past 36,000 years in both Eurasia and sub-Saharan Africa. The results of the 3D geometric and linear morphometric analyses suggest that Hofmeyr shares close affinity with Eurasian UP specimens but is more distant from recent sub-Saharan African populations. These analyses emphasize that neither large absolute size nor allometrically related shape similarities are responsible for the relationship seen between Hofmeyr and penecontemporaneous Eurasian UP skulls.
The placement of Hofmeyr with Eurasian UP crania rather than with recent, geographically proximate humans is important given the specimen's geochronological age and the ability of craniometric data to differentiate recent human populations in accord with their geographic and genetic relationships. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that UP Eurasians descended from a population that emigrated from sub- Saharan Africa in the Late Pleistocene. The Hofmeyr cranium affords potential insights into the morphology of such a population.
Please take special note: NOWHERE is it said that “European upper Paleolithic Europeans resembled Oceanic populations”
Clyde – I told you to ignore this fool.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: ^Mike you are right. I have already cited 5 sources showing that 1) craniometrics indicate that the Melanesians and Australians are not the same, 2) the Melanesians do not appear in archaeological context until 20kya in Shulland 8-10,000 years after homo sapien sapiens appear in South America, and 3) that the Melanesians are closely related to the San which settled Europe and Asia 40kya and would have been the first "Asians" to cross Beringa. Doug and KIK instead of presneting counter evidence to disconfirm this hypothesis, they continue to claim the original Americans were representatives of the OOA Australoids; and that dark skinned Asians and Africans look alike.
It is sad that these individuals are so brainwashed that they don't know how to think for themselves and just to make themselves right they ignore the evidence and attempt to decieve the members of this forum by citing erroneous material having nothing to do with this thread.
From the response of these guys it is clear they do not recognize normal science ( i.e., make propositions and support them with evidence) . These people have not contradicted any of our post so I am just posting more information in support of this theme rather than commenting on the misinformation spread by Doug and KIK.
Doug and KIK stop trying to steal the heritage of the first African Americans.
.
Clyde I am convinced you are stupid. Just a few posts ago you YOURSELF claimed that the first populations out of Africa were the Australoid type, who have STRAIGHT TO WAVY HAIR. But that CONTRADICTS what you said about the FIRST ASIANS being NEGROID doesn't it? Don't you remember SAYING THAT? I said that the first native Americans were descended from Australoid types. YOU confirm this YOURSELF. Now you are flip flopping again because YOU want to make distinctions between different sets of black as to WHICH group is African and which group isn't THEY ALL DESCEND FROM AFRICANS STUPID. BOTH the straight to wavy haired Australians AND the curly haired New Guineans are the remnants of the first OOA migrations. YOU are the one trying to make distinctions THAT MAKE NO SENSE. The first populations of the Americas were closer to Australians and Africans. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION. DUMMY.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug this shows what a moron you are and how "white supremacy" has made you ill. Just like Europeans you believe all blacks look alike.
It makes no sense because you don't respect Black/African people. You have read so much written by Eurocentrists that Afrocentric writings are wrong you believe what ever they teach your ignorant and stupid ass. Fool, we are standing on the backs of scholars like W.E.B. DuBois, Carter G. Woodson and Anta Diop--all PhDs--which you reject due to your self hate. Sad boy--read the writings of your own scholars.
I formerly thought you had some intelligence but your failure to let the research guide your conclusions make it clear you are a fool and only repeat what your masters think you should believe.
It is clear that your reponses reflect your own prejudices against Black/African people because the research makes it clear that Australians and Melanesians do not look a like. Get off your knees and think for yourself. You are not alone.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population, Mongoloids and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety into the Pacific and East Asia.
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.
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.
First of all the original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
San
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.
posted
Clyde, I'm certain you remember the 1960s white HIPPY movement with young whites rubbing elbows with black activists. At the time, they had their selfish reasons for doing so. Today, those Hippies have come full circle and are the Republican CEOs of US corporations and adapted the father and grandfather's views. Everyone is here for their own reasons.
The Australian and Fijians above do actually resemble the San versus the "contemporary" African.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
We claim that due to the African origin of the first Americans, some Amerind groups mixed with the original African Americans and later Africans taken to America during the Atlantic Slave Trade. I have made it clear that I believe that the present Amerind population probably only entered Mexico and South America after 1000 BC.
Let's look at the facts:
1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia
2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west .
. 4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC
5)using craniometric evidence it is clear that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Asian Native Americans
6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice
7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America
8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and skeletons dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean
9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds
10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya
11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes
12) Maya carried African y chromosome
13) Chontal Mayan speakers were classified as Negroes by Quatrefages. This may explain why the Maya carry African genes
14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast
15) The Dufuna boat makes it clear that Africans probably had the technology to travel to the Americas 15,000 years ago.
16) Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup.
17) Amerinds carry haplogroup N, just like Africans.
18)The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 . A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup.
19)Quatrefages noted numerous African Native American tribes
20)The antiquity of these populations is supported by the ancient iconography found in these countries which are of African Native Americans.
21) Most contemporary populations are descendants of the San people.
quote:Originally posted by meninarmer: Clyde, I'm certain you remember the 1960s white HIPPY movement with young whites rubbing elbows with black activists. At the time, they had their selfish reasons for doing so. Today, those Hippies have come full circle and are the Republican CEOs of US corporations and adapted the father and grandfather's views. Everyone is here for their own reasons.
The Australian and Fijians above do actually resemble the San versus the "contemporary" African.
It is not just the Hippies. I know you are well read in Black political science. If you remember even the Communists were against DuBois and other Blacks who supported Afrocentric history. People like Doug feel that if they avoid supporting Afrocentric views of history they will be safe and not attacked by Europeans. But as evident from the many post on this forum and continued debate on the racial origins Egyptians any time you give Blacks/Africans credit for having a history you are going to be attacked by Europeans, may they be liberal, conservative or whatever.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: No members of the OOA population made their way to the New World.
There is clear evidence that the OOA population settled Asia. But lets not forget that if the OOA population who took the eastern route out of Africa left the Continent around 60kya this would have been during the last Ice Age.
The Ice Age latsed from from 110kya to around 12kya. As a result the OOA populartion would have found it impossible to take a land route to the Americas across Beringa. As a result, your insistence that the OOA population made their way to the Americas does not correlate with the environmental and archaeological evidence.
.
.
The ancient Americans looked more like the Khoisan then Australians, because they came from Africa not Asia.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Doug this shows what a moron you are and how "white supremacy" has made you ill. Just like Europeans you believe all blacks look alike.
It makes no sense because you don't respect Black/African people. You have read so much written by Eurocentrists that Afrocentric writings are wrong you believe what ever they teach your ignorant and stupid ass. Fool, we are standing on the backs of scholars like W.E.B. DuBois, Carter G. Woodson and Anta Diop--all PhDs--which you reject due to your self hate. Sad boy--read the writings of your own scholars.
I formerly thought you had some intelligence but your failure to let the research guide your conclusions make it clear you are a fool and only repeat what your masters think you should believe.
It is clear that your reponses reflect your own prejudices against Black/African people because the research makes it clear that Australians and Melanesians do not look a like. Get off your knees and think for yourself. You are not alone.
.
Clyde you are simply dumb. I said a few pages ago that the first Americans were like Australians and YOU denied it and claimed "NO THEY WERE NEGROID AFRICANS" and that the first migrants arrived in the Americas FROM AFRICA and that they were NOT like the Australians because the migrants from Asia CAME FAR LATER. Now you are simply contradicting yourself and spinning yourself silly. They ALL come from Africa Clyde that no matter what "differences" you claim they have. You are simply being dumb and using OUTDATED PSEUDOSCIENCE to support a typology that isn't reflected in REALITY. All Africans have differences in cranial types, so it doesn't DISTINGUISH who is and isn't Africans and certainly NEGROID has nothing to do with it.
The fundamental point you HAVE NOT addressed is how the cranio facial characteristics change the fact that the FIRST ASIANS were Australian Aborigines and New Guineans and that people LIKE THEM are the ones who FIRST POPULATED ASIA and eventually migrated INTO THE AMERICAS. That is a SIMPLE POINT.
It is YOU who keeps referencing OUTDATED racialist research not me so YOU are the one who has WHITE SUPREMACY on the brain.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population
^^^We know their are craniometric differences, but this again, is not due to another migration OOA, this what you say, but this is not facts.
The below is......
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 |
quote:2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
Meanwhile....
As we can see as follows genetic and anthropological information confirms what me and Doug are saying.
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).
Andrew Kitchen1, Michael M. Miyamoto2, Connie J. Mulligan1*
1 Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America, 2 Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
Background
We evaluate the process by which the Americas were originally colonized and propose a three-stage model that integrates current genetic, archaeological, geological, and paleoecological data. ***Specifically, we analyze mitochondrial and nuclear genetic data*** by using complementary coalescent models of demographic history and incorporating non-genetic data to enhance the anthropological relevance of the analysis.
Methodology/Findings
Bayesian skyline plots, ***which provide dynamic representations of population size changes over time***, indicate that Amerinds went through two stages of growth ≈40,000 and ≈15,000 years ago separated by a long period of population stability. Isolation-with-migration coalescent analyses, which utilize data from sister populations to estimate a divergence date and founder population sizes, ***suggest an Amerind population expansion starting ≈15,000 years ago.***
Conclusions/Significance
***These results support a model for the peopling of the New World in which Amerind ancestors diverged from the Asian gene pool prior to 40,000 years ago and experienced a gradual population expansion as they moved into Beringia.*** After a long period of little change in population size in greater Beringia, Amerinds rapidly expanded into the Americas ≈15,000 years ago either through an interior ice-free corridor or along the coast. This rapid colonization of the New World was achieved by a founder group with an effective population size of ≈1,000–5,400 individuals. Our model presents a detailed scenario for the timing and scale of the initial migration to the Americas, substantially refines the estimate of New World founders, and provides a unified theory for testing with future datasets and analytic methods.
------
Michael M. Miyamoto2---- Author from above study.
The result is a ***unified, interdisciplinary*** theory of the **"peopling" of the New World**, which **shows a gradual migration and expansion of people from Asia through Siberia and into Beringia starting about 40,000 years ago***; a ***long waiting period in Beringia*** where the population size remained relatively stable; and ***finally a rapid expansion into North America*** through Alaska or Canada about ***15,000 years ago.***
"***This was the raw material, the original genetic source for all of the Americas,"*** said Michael Miyamoto, Ph.D., a professor and associate chairman of zoology in UF's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. "You can think of the people as a distinct group blocked by glaciers to the east. ***They had already been west, and had no reason to go back.*** They had entered this waiting stage and for ***20,000 years***, generations were passing and genetic differences were accumulating. By looking at the kinds and frequencies of these mutations in modern populations, we can get an idea of when the mutations arose and how many people were around to carry them."Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Bayesian skyline plots, ***which provide dynamic representations of population size changes over time***, indicate that Amerinds went through two stages of growth ≈40,000 and ≈15,000 years ago separated by a long period of population stability. Isolation-with-migration coalescent analyses, which utilize data from sister populations to estimate a divergence date and founder population sizes, ***suggest an Amerind population expansion starting ≈15,000 years ago.***
Stupid. This is still 17,000 to 21,000 years after the first African Americans were established in South America.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
It is YOU who keeps referencing OUTDATED racialist research not me so YOU are the one who has WHITE SUPREMACY on the brain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You pathetic fool you can't even read. In your usual ignorant fashion you are talking about outdated references when in fact the citations I made are mostly only a few years old, as illustrated by the re-post of the relevant references.
You moron, why do you make such a fool of yourself. A smart person would remain silent instead of making a big jack ass of themselves.
If you spent time reading what I wrote you wouldn't look so foolish and make wild statements lacking any foundation. The citations below are the latest in the field, you on the otherhand make statements only on what you believe white people would have you believe--but alas you don't even know the latest research--you only say things based on your warped Coconut ideas.
You are worst than the average troll You should know better. But here you are making statements just like them concerning information you don't have a clue about and then begin calling people names when they don't agree with your moronic statements.
Fool, your adoring fans can't help your stupid illiterate ass. We want to see data or remain seated like most little boys and learn something for once.
.
Stop trying to steal the heritage of the first African Americans.
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.
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.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
Meanwhile....
As we can see as follows genetic and anthropological information confirms what me and Doug are saying.
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).
Andrew Kitchen1, Michael M. Miyamoto2, Connie J. Mulligan1*
1 Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America, 2 Department of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of America
Background
We evaluate the process by which the Americas were originally colonized and propose a three-stage model that integrates current genetic, archaeological, geological, and paleoecological data. ***Specifically, we analyze mitochondrial and nuclear genetic data*** by using complementary coalescent models of demographic history and incorporating non-genetic data to enhance the anthropological relevance of the analysis.
Methodology/Findings
Bayesian skyline plots, ***which provide dynamic representations of population size changes over time***, indicate that Amerinds went through two stages of growth ≈40,000 and ≈15,000 years ago separated by a long period of population stability. Isolation-with-migration coalescent analyses, which utilize data from sister populations to estimate a divergence date and founder population sizes, ***suggest an Amerind population expansion starting ≈15,000 years ago.***
Conclusions/Significance
***These results support a model for the peopling of the New World in which Amerind ancestors diverged from the Asian gene pool prior to 40,000 years ago and experienced a gradual population expansion as they moved into Beringia.*** After a long period of little change in population size in greater Beringia, Amerinds rapidly expanded into the Americas ≈15,000 years ago either through an interior ice-free corridor or along the coast. This rapid colonization of the New World was achieved by a founder group with an effective population size of ≈1,000–5,400 individuals. Our model presents a detailed scenario for the timing and scale of the initial migration to the Americas, substantially refines the estimate of New World founders, and provides a unified theory for testing with future datasets and analytic methods.
------
Michael M. Miyamoto2---- Author from above study.
The result is a ***unified, interdisciplinary*** theory of the **"peopling" of the New World**, which **shows a gradual migration and expansion of people from Asia through Siberia and into Beringia starting about 40,000 years ago***; a ***long waiting period in Beringia*** where the population size remained relatively stable; and ***finally a rapid expansion into North America*** through Alaska or Canada about ***15,000 years ago.***
"***This was the raw material, the original genetic source for all of the Americas,"*** said Michael Miyamoto, Ph.D., a professor and associate chairman of zoology in UF's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. "You can think of the people as a distinct group blocked by glaciers to the east. ***They had already been west, and had no reason to go back.*** They had entered this waiting stage and for ***20,000 years***, generations were passing and genetic differences were accumulating. By looking at the kinds and frequencies of these mutations in modern populations, we can get an idea of when the mutations arose and how many people were around to carry them."
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: KIK
quote:
Bayesian skyline plots, ***which provide dynamic representations of population size changes over time***, indicate that Amerinds went through two stages of growth ≈40,000 and ≈15,000 years ago separated by a long period of population stability. Isolation-with-migration coalescent analyses, which utilize data from sister populations to estimate a divergence date and founder population sizes, ***suggest an Amerind population expansion starting ≈15,000 years ago.***
Stupid. This is still 17,000 to 21,000 years after the first African Americans were established in South America.
.
Where is this so called data of Africans migrating from West Africa 17-20ky before this presentation??
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde how does your posting of craniometric differences between original OOA populations, explain away the facts below? Where does it refute it?
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).
Bayesian skyline plots, ***which provide dynamic representations of population size changes over time***, indicate that Amerinds went through two stages of growth ≈40,000 and ≈15,000 years ago separated by a long period of population stability. Isolation-with-migration coalescent analyses, which utilize data from sister populations to estimate a divergence date and founder population sizes, ***suggest an Amerind population expansion starting ≈15,000 years ago.***
Stupid. This is still 17,000 to 21,000 years after the first African Americans were established in South America.
.
Didn't YOU just post the fact that the first OOA migrations into Asia were the Australian aboriginal and New Guinea aboriginal types? Are (or were they) Africans? NO CLYDE.
You are CONTRADICTING yourself and making fake distinctions.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
It is YOU who keeps referencing OUTDATED racialist research not me so YOU are the one who has WHITE SUPREMACY on the brain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You pathetic fool you can't even read. In your usual ignorant fashion you are talking about outdated references when in fact the citations I made are mostly only a few years old, as illustrated by the re-post of the relevant references.
You moron, why do you make such a fool of yourself. A smart person would remain silent instead of making a big jack ass of themselves.
If you spent time reading what I wrote you wouldn't look so foolish and make wild statements lacking any foundation. The citations below are the latest in the field, you on the otherhand make statements only on what you believe white people would have you believe--but alas you don't even know the latest research--you only say things based on your warped Coconut ideas.
You are worst than the average troll You should know better. But here you are making statements just like them concerning information you don't have a clue about and then begin calling people names when they don't agree with your moronic statements.
Fool, your adoring fans can't help your stupid illiterate ass. We want to see data or remain seated like most little boys and learn something for once.
.
Stop trying to steal the heritage of the first African Americans.
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.
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.
The only one being stupid is YOU. I said that the Australian aboriginal type were the first to migrate to the Americas and you blabber about African Americans. YOUR OWN citations point to AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINES being among the first populations in Asia.... SO? That actually SUPPORTS what I am saying STUPID. Not unless you have EVIDENCE in all that craniometric data that the first natives in the Americas came DIRECTLY from Africa and YOU DON'T. THEREFORE, if the Australian aborigines are among the FIRST ASIANS and represent the earliest OOA migrants to Asia then what are you BLABBERING about? YOU don't even know. You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes you moron is that the OOA population never crossed the Beringa. Up until the expansion of the San, i.e. Grimaldi/Cro-Magnon population Eurasia was mainly occupied by Neanderthal people. It was the Grimaldi who replaced the Neanderthal stupid.
The OOA event took place around 60kya. The Grimaldi expansion was around 40kya. They can not be the same people stupid.Moreover as pointed out above the Australian people live in Highland New Guinea and Australia. Melanesians live in the coastal areas. Read the literature ignoramus.
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].
This article suggest that the spread many populations in the world may have began with the San. The San do not represent the original OOA population.
The San carry the A haplogroup. The fact that many Americans carry this gene point the early expansion of this group or related populations into the New World.
The fact that populations like the Maya carry African genes, instead of Australian genes supports the view the first Americans were Africans--not Australians silly fool.
You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making. These are the terms used to refer to these people by modern anthropologists stupid. In your world these terms no longer exist but in the literature I cited above they remain.
Just because you prefer to loook at the world in rose colored glasses that is your right. But it does not change the way science is presented fool. The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians. The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans. Stupid, if the original Blacks of Asia came from Africa we can call them African fool, just like we call Blacks in America :African American.
Get up off your knees. Read your own scholars instead of trying to protect white feelings teach the truth stupid boy.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making. These are the terms used to refer to these people by modern anthropologists stupid. In your world these terms no longer exist but in the literature I cited above they remain.
Just because you prefer to loook at the world in rose colored glasses that is your right. But it does not change the way science is presented fool. The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians. The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans. Stupid, if the original Blacks of Asia came from Africa we can call them African fool, just like we call Blacks in America :African American.
Get up off your knees. Read your own scholars instead of trying to protect white feelings teach the truth stupid boy.
.
The only one stuck in a world of rose colored glasses is you Clyde. You claim to be an African scholar who is attempting to redress the deception of white supremacy but it is YOU who cling to that same deception. And YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT YOURSELF. Therefore, the only one stuck protecting WHITE SCHOLARSHIP IS YOU CLYDE.
You are a joke. The point is YOU don't understand the reason why mixing terms like black, negroid and African are MEANINGLESS and THAT is why I am calling you DUMB. It is isn't about the scholarship from WHITES. It is that YOU PERSONALLY are too dumb to see that ALL of these terms simply mean the same thing: BLACK FOLKS. YOU are caught up in trying to make DISTINCTIONS that do NOTHING that change the facts and OVERLY COMPLICATE something QUITE SIMPLE.
BLACK FOLKS are the oldest form of human on the planet. BLACK FOLKS are the most diverse population ON THE PLANET. BLACK FOLKS are the FIRST PEOPLE on every continent on earth. And ALL HUMANS originated in Africa as BLACK PEOPLE. The first NATIVE AMERICANS were BLACK PEOPLE of various types who MIGRATED to the Americas FROM ASIA and RETAINED many of the traits COMMON TO ALL EARLY HUMANS that migrated OOA. There is NOTHING EXTRA to ADD to it and YOUR ATTEMPTS to pretend to ADD VALUE to this by making up FAUX distinctions BETWEEN AND AMONG these BLACK FOLKS is retarded. And in all actuality you are only using WEASEL WORDS to try and make a CONCLUSION that has no merit. You want the first people of the Americas to be AFRICANS, but you HAVE NO PROOF that the first populations to populate the ENTIRE continent of the Americas came DIRECT from Africa. So instead of trying to provide proof, you resort to FAUX TYPOLOGIES to try and make your case. All so you can claim that these people were AFRICAN AMERICANS. How cute. Don't that just make everything swell..... BULLSH*T. HOW on earth were these AFRICANS if they came from ASIA Clyde? YOU posted maps CLAIMING to show the connections between Africans and the first Americans and NOT ONE of those maps actually showed this. And so of course, you instead rely on your usual bag of tricks involving HALF BAKED premises and contorted logic to make your case. Please stop clowning yourself and start making sense for a change.
I am not at all against the idea that Africans may have indeed been some of the first migrants to the Americas many thousands of years ago. However, I disagree with YOUR METHODOLOGY, which relies on TWISTED LOGIC as opposed to DIRECT EVIDENCE and convincing proof. All of which makes something that has merit into something of a laughable position, simply because YOUR METHODOLOGY is so questionable in many cases. It isn't that THE IDEA is bad in itself, it is that YOU don't follow through and make a convincing case for it.
And yes, black folks only means people with dark skin.
That is the point.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making. These are the terms used to refer to these populations by modern anthropologists stupid. In your world these terms no longer exist but in the literature I cited above they remain.
Just because you prefer to look at the world in rose colored glasses that is your right. But it does not change the way science is presented fool. The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians. The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans. Stupid, if the original Blacks of Asia came from Africa we can call them African fool, just like we call Blacks in America :African American.
Get up off your knees. Read your own scholars instead of trying to protect white feelings teach the truth stupid boy.
.
The only one stuck in a world of rose colored glasses is you Clyde. You claim to be an African scholar who is attempting to redress the deception of white supremacy but it is YOU who cling to that same deception. And YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT YOURSELF. Therefore, the only one stuck protecting WHITE SCHOLARSHIP IS YOU CLYDE.
You are a joke. The point is YOU don't understand the reason why mixing terms like black, negroid and African are MEANINGLESS and THAT is why I am calling you DUMB. It is isn't about the scholarship from WHITES. It is that YOU PERSONALLY are too dumb to see that ALL of these terms simply mean the same thing: BLACK FOLKS. YOU are caught up in trying to make DISTINCTIONS that do NOTHING that change the facts and OVERLY COMPLICATE something QUITE SIMPLE.
BLACK FOLKS are the oldest form of human on the planet. BLACK FOLKS are the most diverse population ON THE PLANET. BLACK FOLKS are the FIRST PEOPLE on every continent on earth. And ALL HUMANS originated in Africa as BLACK PEOPLE. The first NATIVE AMERICANS were BLACK PEOPLE of various types who MIGRATED to the Americas FROM ASIA and RETAINED many of the traits COMMON TO ALL EARLY HUMANS that migrated OOA. There is NOTHING EXTRA to ADD to it and YOUR ATTEMPTS to pretend to ADD VALUE to this by making up FAUX distinctions BETWEEN AND AMONG these BLACK FOLKS is retarded. And in all actuality you are only using WEASEL WORDS to try and make a CONCLUSION that has no merit. You want the first people of the Americas to be AFRICANS, but you HAVE NO PROOF that the first populations to populate the ENTIRE continent of the Americas came DIRECT from Africa. So instead of trying to provide proof, you resort to FAUX TYPOLOGIES to try and make your case. All so you can claim that these people were AFRICAN AMERICANS. How cute. Don't that just make everything swell..... BULLSH*T. HOW on earth were these AFRICANS if they came from ASIA Clyde? YOU posted maps CLAIMING to show the connections between Africans and the first Americans and NOT ONE of those maps actually showed this. And so of course, you instead rely on your usual bag of tricks involving HALF BAKED premises and contorted logic to make your case. Please stop clowning yourself and start making sense for a change.
I am not at all against the idea that Africans may have indeed been some of the first migrants to the Americas many thousands of years ago. However, I disagree with YOUR METHODOLOGY, which relies on TWISTED LOGIC as opposed to DIRECT EVIDENCE and convincing proof. All of which makes something that has merit into something of a laughable position, simply because YOUR METHODOLOGY is so questionable in many cases. It isn't that THE IDEA is bad in itself, it is that YOU don't follow through and make a convincing case for it.
And yes, black folks only means people with dark skin.
That is the point.
You wouldn't know methodology if you tripped over it.
There is only one methodology in science: you make a hypothesis and support it with evidence. The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
There are four methods of knowing 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction).
You use the method of authority. Because you have been beatdown by white supremacy anything an establishment Europeab writes must be correct especially when it appears in a referred journal as long as it agrees with your bias.
Since your research is based on the method of authority you don't know how to make hypotheses. What you do is simply repeat what you read without any analysis. Scientist, real reasearchers make hypotheses. Mike made a hypothesis and we supported it with data. You on the other otherhand, make statements absent supporting evidence.
Since you are a midget in the world of research and think like whites. Anybody dark skinned is Black to you, when the term Black refers to people of African origin.
As a result, when books recognize that the Australians and Melanesians are not alike you continue to advocate the idea they are one and the same eventhough Australians represent the OOA population, and the Melanesians do not appear in mainland Asia until 18kya, 12k after homo sapiens arrived in South America.
Next you claim that just because some one is dark skinned they much be labled Black. And eventhough whites in America are called Europeans; Blacks African Americans; and Amerinds Asians--you can not call the people who settled Asia and the Americas from Africa Africans, eventhough we call the former slaves of African origin: African Americans. Oh you confused ignorant fool.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. This falsity of logical possibility is evident in the rejection of the of the idea that Africans were not the first settlers of America, when we know that: 1) Africans had the naval technology to make a voyage to America; 2) no one could cross the Beringa between 110kya to 12kya , yet numerous skeletal remains dating back to 30kya have been found on the east coast of the Americas, coastline that could be easy reached by currents; and 3) the craniometrics make it clear the people were of the Melanesian/African type.
Your answer to this evidence is: The first Blacks to arrive in America were members of the OOA population that crossed Beringa. Yet you provide no data in support of this idea which disconfirms the evidence of a connection. Oh what a fool you are.
Stop claiming to be a careful researcher and supporter of science. You only support what you believe in--not what the science says.
posted
^^^Where is this so called data of Africans migrating from West Africa 17-20ky before the presentation??
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
If you could not cross the Beringa until 14kya and all the skeletons of ancient inhabitants are found near the Atlantic coastline the people had to have come from Africa given the fact the carniometrics indicate that they were of the African variety, and ice blocked any possible movement of people from the Pacific to Argintina and Chile where some of the evidence of early man has been found.
The first Americans did not cross the Bearing Straits to enter the Americas.The earliest sites for Negroes date between 20,000 and 40000 years ago Old Crow Basin Canada(38,000BC) Pedra Furada (45,000BC) Brazil. These people were pygmies and bushman types according to Dr. Dixon, & Dr. Marquez(p.179).
Chile: Monteverde (12,500 years), Tierra del Fuego, Cueva de Fell, Tres Arroyos and some other places.
There are older ones in the Argentinian Patagonia.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's look at the facts:
1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia
2) during the OOA event much of Siberia and North America was under ice from 110,000 - 10,000BC. As a result there was no way Siberians could cross Beringa before the end of the ice age
3) Ice even separated much of South America east to west .
. 4) the first Americans appear in Brazil, Chile and Argintina Latin America around 30,000 BC
5)using craniometric evidence it is clear that the first Americans look like Africans not modern Asian Native Americans
6) using craniometrics I have pointed out that Asia was dominated by the Australian population until the rise of Suhulland when the Melanesian people appear in the area, at this time the Beringa was still under Ice
7) I pointed out that the Melanesian type reach East Asian mainland by 5000 BC, long after Africans had settled Latin America
8) between 15,000-12,000 we see numerous African populations in Mexico and Brazil; and skeletons dating to this period have even been found off the Yucatan coast in the Caribbean
9) these first Americans did not look like the Australians or modern Amerinds
10) iconography of PreClassic people like the Cherla, Ocos and other groups is of Negroes not Amerinds like the Maya
11) Amerind groups not associated with African slaves carry African genes
12) Maya carried African y chromosome
13) Chontal Mayan speakers were classified as Negroes by Quatrefages. This may explain why the Maya carry African genes
14)Negrocostachicanos claim that they have never been slaves and are indigenous to Guererro and Oaxaca on the Pacific coast
15) The Dufuna boat makes it clear that Africans probably had the technology to travel to the Americas 15,000 years ago.
16) Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup.
17) Amerinds carry haplogroup N, just like Africans.
18)The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 . A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup.
19)Quatrefages noted numerous African Native American tribes
20)The antiquity of these populations is supported by the ancient iconography found in these countries which are of African Native Americans.
21) Most contemporary populations are descendants of the San people.
.
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."
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.
The last ice age in North America lasted between 110,000 and 17,000BP. The ice-free corridor on the eastern flank of the Rockies did not open before 13,000 years ago. Africans were in the Americas long before the end of the last Ice Age when the “Siberians”, who also were more than likely Africans began to cross the Bearing Straits. By 12,500 BC Africans were already living in Chile.
Stop trying to steal the heritage of the Black people like the Olmecs, who represent the Mother Culture of Mexico.Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde sorry but this is all speculation, maybe this maybe that, not facts, you're basing this on your own opinion, you don't understand OOA and this is what destroys your theory.
Where is this 30kya anthropological evidence Clyde? The same way humans did not migrate directly into Europe from Africa, they did not migrate directly into the Americas, either. If you're not going to call Oceanics African, than you definitely have no right to call them Africans when found in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Sorry but you're just wishful thinking.
Australo-Melanesians are representative of early diversification between Early humans OOA, without gene flow from other groups.
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 |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Clyde sorry but this is all speculation, maybe this maybe that, not facts, you're basing this on your own opinion, you don't understand OOA and this is what destroys your theory.
Where is this 30kya anthropological evidence Clyde? The same way humans did not migrate directly into Europe from Africa, they did not migrate directly into the Americas, either. If you're not going to call Oceanics African, than you definitely have no right to call them Africans when found in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Sorry but you're just wishful thinking.
The websites are are note in the previous post. If you bothered to read what is written you wouldn't ask such an ignorant question. I also posted the print media. Since you are an imbecile I will re-post the print material below to help inform your ignorant ass.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Several types of blacks entered the Americas including the San, Anu or negrito type and the Proto-Saharan variety of blacks.The Proto-Saharan Blacks probably entered the area after 4000BC.
Up until recently it was believed that the first humans crossed the Bering Strait 12,000 B.P., to enter the North American continent.(Begley 1991, p.15) This view was never accepted by physical anthropologists who have found skeletal remains far older than 12,000 B.P.
Today archaeologists have found sites from Canada to Chile that range between 20,000 and 40,000 years old. There are numerous sites in North and South America which are over 35,000 years old. These sites are the Old Crow Basin (c.38,000 B.C.) in Canada; Orogrande Cave (c.36,000 B.C.) in the United States; and Pedra Furada (c.45,000 B.C.) Given the fact that the earliest dates for habitation of the American continent occur below Canada in South America is highly suggestive of the fact that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted.
The appearance of pebble tools at Monte verde in Chile (c.32,000 B.P), and rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 B.P.) and mastodont hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 B.P.), have led some researchers to believe that the Americas was first settled from South America. C. Vance Haynes noted that: "If people have been in South America for over 30,000 years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites?....One possible answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America was somehow initially populated from directions other than north until Clovis appeared".
P.S. Martin and R. G. Klein after discussing the evidence of mastodont hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago observed that : "The thought that the fossil record of South America is much richer in evidence of early archaeological associations than many believed is indeed provocative....”
The early presence of ice-age sites in South America suggest that these people probably came from Africa. This would explain the affinities between African languages and the Amerind family of languages.
In very ancient times the American continent was inhabited by Asian and African blacks. The oldest skeletal remains found in the Americas are of blacks. Marquez (1956,p.179) observed that "it is [good] to report that long ago the youthful America was also a Negro continent."
"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.
Irwin,C.Fair Gods and Stone Faces.
Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico.
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.
posted
^^^^Wrong Clyde, these were OOA populations, who became non African, just like Australians etc...
Where is the actual anthropological evidence? Quotes don't cut it, simply because anthropological evidence confirms these African resembling populations to be Oceanics. Btw, upper paleolithic populations in Europe, also resembled Oceanics and not the San as you think.
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).
posted
DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America
M. Thomas P. Gilbert,1* Dennis L. Jenkins,2* Anders Götherstrom,3 Nuria Naveran,4 Juan J. Sanchez,5 Michael Hofreiter,6 Philip Francis Thomsen,1 Jonas Binladen,1 Thomas F. G. Higham,7 Robert M. Yohe, II,8 Robert Parr,8 Linda Scott Cummings,9 Eske Willerslev1{dagger}
The timing of the first human migration into the Americas and its relation to the appearance of the Clovis technological complex in North America at about 11,000 to 10,800 radiocarbon years before the present (14C years B.P.) remains contentious. We establish that humans were present at Paisley 5 Mile Point Caves, in south-central Oregon, by 12,300 14C years B.P., through the recovery of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from coprolites, directly dated by accelerator mass spectrometry. The mtDNA corresponds to Native American founding haplogroups A2 and B2. The dates of the coprolites are >1000 14C years earlier than currently accepted dates for the Clovis complex.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Inferring Human Colonization History Using a Copying Model.
Garrett Hellenthal, Adam Auton, Falush.
Clyde - when I first say your link to this study, I was happy to find a new study, but puzzled as to why I had not heard of it before. Well after spending many hours reading and researching it, I found out why I had never heard of it.
The study represents something done by three "Nerdy" mathematicians with a grant, and a lot of time on their hands. It is the stupidest piece of trash, posing as a scientific study, that I have ever seen. And if the authors were near, they would get slapped in the face for wasting my time - what A-holes - they make Knowledgeiskey718 look smart!!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Clyde - In cross-referencing that piece of crap, I did run across some things that you and Egmond might get a kick out of.
Yi The Yi people (own name in the Liangshan dialect: Yízú; the older name "Lolo" or "Luoluo" is now considered derogatory in China, though used officially in Vietnam as Lô Lô and in Thailand as Lolo) are a modern ethnic group in China, Vietnam, and Thailand. Numbering 8 million, they are the seventh largest of the 55 minor ethnic groups officially recognized by the People's Republic of China. They live primarily in rural areas of Sichuan, Yunnan, Guizhou, and Guangxi, usually in mountainous regions. There are 3300 Lô Lô peoples (1999 statistics) living in Hà Giang, Cao Bằng and Lào Cai provinces in northeastern Vietnam. The Yi speak Yi, a Tibeto-Burman language closely related to Burmese, which is written in the Yi script.
Legend has it that the Yi are descended from the ancient Qiang people of today's Western China, who are also said to be the ancestors of the Tibetan, Naxi and Qiang peoples. They migrated from Southeastern Tibet through Sichuan and into Yunnan Province, where their largest populations can be found today. They practice a form of animism, led by a shaman priest known as the Bimaw. They still retain a few ancient religious texts written in their unique pictographic script. Their religion also contains many elements of Daoism and Buddhism.
Many of the Yi in northwestern Yunnan practiced a complicated form of slavery. People were split into the nuohuo or Black Yi (nobles) and qunuo or White Yi (commoners). White Yi and other ethnic groups were held as slaves, but the higher slaves were allowed to farm their own land, hold their own slaves and eventually buy their freedom.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America
M. Thomas P. Gilbert,1* Dennis L. Jenkins,2* Anders Götherstrom,3 Nuria Naveran,4 Juan J. Sanchez,5 Michael Hofreiter,6 Philip Francis Thomsen,1 Jonas Binladen,1 Thomas F. G. Higham,7 Robert M. Yohe, II,8 Robert Parr,8 Linda Scott Cummings,9 Eske Willerslev1{dagger}
The timing of the first human migration into the Americas and its relation to the appearance of the Clovis technological complex in North America at about 11,000 to 10,800 radiocarbon years before the present (14C years B.P.) remains contentious. We establish that humans were present at Paisley 5 Mile Point Caves, in south-central Oregon, by 12,300 14C years B.P., through the recovery of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from coprolites, directly dated by accelerator mass spectrometry. The mtDNA corresponds to Native American founding haplogroups A2 and B2. The dates of the coprolites are >1000 14C years earlier than currently accepted dates for the Clovis complex.
I don't see anything wrong with this data. The Khoisan carry hg A, and the Pgymies (Baka, Mbuti & Hadzabe) carry hg B. This just supports my view that the Pgymies and Khoisan were the first Africans to cross Beringa.
This still does not explain away the ancient Africans in South America, Mexico and etc.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Inferring Human Colonization History Using a Copying Model.
Garrett Hellenthal, Adam Auton, Falush.
Clyde - when I first say your link to this study, I was happy to find a new study, but puzzled as to why I had not heard of it before. Well after spending many hours reading and researching it, I found out why I had never heard of it.
The study represents something done by three "Nerdy" mathematicians with a grant, and a lot of time on their hands. It is the stupidest piece of trash, posing as a scientific study, that I have ever seen. And if the authors were near, they would get slapped in the face for wasting my time - what A-holes - they make Knowledgeiskey718 look smart!!
I found the piece interesting. It is important for you to understand that much of the dating of DNA, is based solely on statistics. Every date presented for the origin of each haplogroup is the result of statistical analysis.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^^Wrong Clyde, these were OOA populations, who became non African, just like Australians etc...
Where is the actual anthropological evidence? Quotes don't cut it, simply because anthropological evidence confirms these African resembling populations to be Oceanics. Btw, upper paleolithic populations in Europe, also resembled Oceanics and not the San as you think.
The skeleton can be a representative of the African type Negro.
quote: Several specialists have reconstructed Luzia's face based on the detailed data supplied by Prof. Neves. When the results became available, even to a layperson it it had become obvious that Luzia was not an Amerind. Instead she had had features strongly suggesting an African or Australoid ancestry (also see the craniometric graphic below).Luzia was not an Amerind! No trace of Luzia's hair has survived so the reconstructions all had to leave the top of her head bald or cover it discreetly with a towel. Nor, of course, is there any indication of what her skin colour might have been as such a superficial trait does not survive 12,500 years. http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text-LagoaSanta/text-LagoaSanta.htm
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America
M. Thomas P. Gilbert,1* Dennis L. Jenkins,2* Anders Götherstrom,3 Nuria Naveran,4 Juan J. Sanchez,5 Michael Hofreiter,6 Philip Francis Thomsen,1 Jonas Binladen,1 Thomas F. G. Higham,7 Robert M. Yohe, II,8 Robert Parr,8 Linda Scott Cummings,9 Eske Willerslev1{dagger}
The timing of the first human migration into the Americas and its relation to the appearance of the Clovis technological complex in North America at about 11,000 to 10,800 radiocarbon years before the present (14C years B.P.) remains contentious. We establish that humans were present at Paisley 5 Mile Point Caves, in south-central Oregon, by 12,300 14C years B.P., through the recovery of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from coprolites, directly dated by accelerator mass spectrometry. The mtDNA corresponds to Native American founding haplogroups A2 and B2. The dates of the coprolites are >1000 14C years earlier than currently accepted dates for the Clovis complex.
I don't see anything wrong with this data. The Khoisan carry hg A, and the Pgymies (Baka, Mbuti & Hadzabe) carry hg B. This just supports my view that the Pgymies and Khoisan were the first Africans to cross Beringa.
This still does not explain away the ancient Africans in South America, Mexico and etc.
.
Clyde, I already explained the difference between Y-DNA and Mtdna. A2 and B2 found amongst Native Americans are Mtdna markers, whilst, the A and B found amongst Khoisan and Pygmies are Y-dna markers.
Clyde you do understand the difference right?
They were OOA populations, just the same as the ones who populated Asia and Europe etc... They were not direct African migrants Clyde.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: ^^^^Wrong Clyde, these were OOA populations, who became non African, just like Australians etc...
Where is the actual anthropological evidence? Quotes don't cut it, simply because anthropological evidence confirms these African resembling populations to be Oceanics. Btw, upper paleolithic populations in Europe, also resembled Oceanics and not the San as you think.
The skeleton can be a representative of the African type Negro.
quote: Several specialists have reconstructed Luzia's face based on the detailed data supplied by Prof. Neves. When the results became available, even to a layperson it it had become obvious that Luzia was not an Amerind. Instead she had had features strongly suggesting an African or Australoid ancestry (also see the craniometric graphic below).Luzia was not an Amerind! No trace of Luzia's hair has survived so the reconstructions all had to leave the top of her head bald or cover it discreetly with a towel. Nor, of course, is there any indication of what her skin colour might have been as such a superficial trait does not survive 12,500 years. http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text-LagoaSanta/text-LagoaSanta.htm
.
Aha Clyde, more of that could be would be nonsense, while I have the anthropological evidence, which confirms what I am saying Read..........
Titre du document / Document title Human skeletal remains from sabana de bogotá, colombia : A case of paleoamerican morphology late survival in South America? Auteur(s) / Author(s) NEVES Walter A. (1) ; HUBBE Mark (2) ; CORREAL Gonzalo (3) ;
Résumé / Abstract Human skeletal remains of the first Americans are scarce, especially in North America. In South America the situation is less dramatic. Two important archaeological regions have generated important collections that allow the analysis of the cranial morphological variation of the Early Americans: Lagoa Santa, Brazil, and Sabana de Bogotá, Colombia. Human crania from the former region have been studied by one of us (WAN) and collaborators, showing that the cranial morphology of the first South Americans was very different from that prevailing today in East Asia and among Native Americans. These results have allowed for proposing that the New World may have been colonized by two different biological populations in the final Pleistocene/early Holocene. 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.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
[On Oct. 24, Elmer writes]You are right though, that if it wasn't for these Afro-looneys the forum would be taken a lot more seriously by all laypeople regardless of color.
[Marc writes] ELMER. It is your ancestors and rASHOL’S who, in the wave of Europeans that came with Columbus encountered an African peoples
and murdered them taking their land and riches, killing those who resisted and enslaving as many of those yet left alive.
Yes, Elmer. You have bravura. And come from a race of murderers.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Clyde you're delusional.
LMAO You realize that with Clyde Winters, the above is an understatment??
Posts: 26285 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are stuck on using terms like African, Negroid and Mongoloid that have NO BEARING on the facts we are discussing. By the time the aboriginal types reached Australia and New Guinea, they were not AFRICANS anymore as AFRICAN refers to a geographic place. And by the time that they crossed into the Americas, this was even MORE true. So WHAT ON EARTH are you talking about? They WERE NOT AFRICANS.
You live in a fantasy world of your own making. These are the terms used to refer to these populations by modern anthropologists stupid. In your world these terms no longer exist but in the literature I cited above they remain.
Just because you prefer to look at the world in rose colored glasses that is your right. But it does not change the way science is presented fool. The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians. The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans. Stupid, if the original Blacks of Asia came from Africa we can call them African fool, just like we call Blacks in America :African American.
Get up off your knees. Read your own scholars instead of trying to protect white feelings teach the truth stupid boy.
.
The only one stuck in a world of rose colored glasses is you Clyde. You claim to be an African scholar who is attempting to redress the deception of white supremacy but it is YOU who cling to that same deception. And YOU ACKNOWLEDGE IT YOURSELF. Therefore, the only one stuck protecting WHITE SCHOLARSHIP IS YOU CLYDE.
You are a joke. The point is YOU don't understand the reason why mixing terms like black, negroid and African are MEANINGLESS and THAT is why I am calling you DUMB. It is isn't about the scholarship from WHITES. It is that YOU PERSONALLY are too dumb to see that ALL of these terms simply mean the same thing: BLACK FOLKS. YOU are caught up in trying to make DISTINCTIONS that do NOTHING that change the facts and OVERLY COMPLICATE something QUITE SIMPLE.
BLACK FOLKS are the oldest form of human on the planet. BLACK FOLKS are the most diverse population ON THE PLANET. BLACK FOLKS are the FIRST PEOPLE on every continent on earth. And ALL HUMANS originated in Africa as BLACK PEOPLE. The first NATIVE AMERICANS were BLACK PEOPLE of various types who MIGRATED to the Americas FROM ASIA and RETAINED many of the traits COMMON TO ALL EARLY HUMANS that migrated OOA. There is NOTHING EXTRA to ADD to it and YOUR ATTEMPTS to pretend to ADD VALUE to this by making up FAUX distinctions BETWEEN AND AMONG these BLACK FOLKS is retarded. And in all actuality you are only using WEASEL WORDS to try and make a CONCLUSION that has no merit. You want the first people of the Americas to be AFRICANS, but you HAVE NO PROOF that the first populations to populate the ENTIRE continent of the Americas came DIRECT from Africa. So instead of trying to provide proof, you resort to FAUX TYPOLOGIES to try and make your case. All so you can claim that these people were AFRICAN AMERICANS. How cute. Don't that just make everything swell..... BULLSH*T. HOW on earth were these AFRICANS if they came from ASIA Clyde? YOU posted maps CLAIMING to show the connections between Africans and the first Americans and NOT ONE of those maps actually showed this. And so of course, you instead rely on your usual bag of tricks involving HALF BAKED premises and contorted logic to make your case. Please stop clowning yourself and start making sense for a change.
I am not at all against the idea that Africans may have indeed been some of the first migrants to the Americas many thousands of years ago. However, I disagree with YOUR METHODOLOGY, which relies on TWISTED LOGIC as opposed to DIRECT EVIDENCE and convincing proof. All of which makes something that has merit into something of a laughable position, simply because YOUR METHODOLOGY is so questionable in many cases. It isn't that THE IDEA is bad in itself, it is that YOU don't follow through and make a convincing case for it.
And yes, black folks only means people with dark skin.
That is the point.
You wouldn't know methodology if you tripped over it.
There is only one methodology in science: you make a hypothesis and support it with evidence. The aim of science is theory construction (F.N. Kirlinger, Foundations of behavior research, (1986) pp.6-10; R. Braithwaite, Scientific explanation, (1955) pp.1-10). A theory is a set of interrelated constructs, propositions and definitions, that provide a systematic understanding of phenomena by outlining relations among a group of variables that explain and predict phenomena.
There are four methods of knowing 1) Method of tenacity (one holds firmly to the truth, because "they know it" to be true); 2) method of authority (the method of established belief, i.e., the Bible or the "experts" says it, it is so); 3) method of intuition (the method where a proposition agrees with reason, but not necessarily with experience); and 4) the method of science (the method of attaining knowledge which calls for self-correction).
You use the method of authority. Because you have been beatdown by white supremacy anything an establishment Europeab writes must be correct especially when it appears in a referred journal as long as it agrees with your bias.
Since your research is based on the method of authority you don't know how to make hypotheses. What you do is simply repeat what you read without any analysis. Scientist, real reasearchers make hypotheses. Mike made a hypothesis and we supported it with data. You on the other otherhand, make statements absent supporting evidence.
Since you are a midget in the world of research and think like whites. Anybody dark skinned is Black to you, when the term Black refers to people of African origin.
As a result, when books recognize that the Australians and Melanesians are not alike you continue to advocate the idea they are one and the same eventhough Australians represent the OOA population, and the Melanesians do not appear in mainland Asia until 18kya, 12k after homo sapiens arrived in South America.
Next you claim that just because some one is dark skinned they much be labled Black. And eventhough whites in America are called Europeans; Blacks African Americans; and Amerinds Asians--you can not call the people who settled Asia and the Americas from Africa Africans, eventhough we call the former slaves of African origin: African Americans. Oh you confused ignorant fool.
Scientific inquiry involves issues of theory construction, control and experimentation. Scientific knowledge must rest on testing, rather than mere induction which can be defined as inferences of laws and generalizations, derived from observation. This falsity of logical possibility is evident in the rejection of the of the idea that Africans were not the first settlers of America, when we know that: 1) Africans had the naval technology to make a voyage to America; 2) no one could cross the Beringa between 110kya to 12kya , yet numerous skeletal remains dating back to 30kya have been found on the east coast of the Americas, coastline that could be easy reached by currents; and 3) the craniometrics make it clear the people were of the Melanesian/African type.
Your answer to this evidence is: The first Blacks to arrive in America were members of the OOA population that crossed Beringa. Yet you provide no data in support of this idea which disconfirms the evidence of a connection. Oh what a fool you are.
Stop claiming to be a careful researcher and supporter of science. You only support what you believe in--not what the science says.
.
Clyde, you can't read and are dumb. I said that the first populations of the Americas were like Australian aborigines. They were NOT Africans. So please go somewhere else with your nonsense. Only you are the one TRIPPING over words and insisting on using terms like AFRICAN to refer to populations that had not been in Africa for over 30,000 years by the time they reached Africa.
YOU are simply silly and here is YOUR OWN convoluted logic:
quote: Let's look at the facts:
1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia
So that makes them AFRICANS does it not?
Nobody said that the first Americans were not black. The point is YOU have provided NO EVIDENCE of Africans colonizing the American continent 30,000 years ago. On top of that it has been shown over and over again that some of the earliest skulls found in south America were closer to AUSTRALIANS AND AFRICANS than modern native Americans.
You only present nonsense in the way of conjecture in terms of what "TYPES" of blacks were in Asia versus what TYPES of blacks were in Africa and how YOU can tell (with no evidence) that the features of the first Americans are the result of DIRECT migrations from Africa. Blacks don't have to be from Africa to be BLACKS Clyde. Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde. And they are indeed black and those first migrations from Asia into the Americas were LIKE them and ALSO black Clyde.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde.
Actually, like all modern humans, **ALL** Native Americans are descended from Australian like populations, this is the point Clyde doesn't understand. Clyde thinks all non Africans who don't look African are a result of space aliens, or some crazy deranged theory like Meninarmer or Marc.
quote: 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).
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic