Doug writes: The only question I got for you Marc, is what are these people:
Marc writes: My work has a specific focus and many of the people above would not appear on my pages. Of those pictures I'd only select this one:
The following, for the third time in this thread, is the population I focus on:
THE THREE GREAT RACES AND THEIR MERGERS: The three great races are the Mongul, the White, and African. Until near 2300 BC, they were completely isolated from each other but since have mixed creating new sub-races as in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The present work focuses not on the sub-races or Mongul or White but African.
.
Which means that you IGNORE THOSE FACTS that do not agree with your silly point of view. You are adhering to OUTDATED race typologies that have NO BEARING and NO RELATIONSHIP to the truth of human population migrations and therefore is the reason why you cannot HANDLE those pictures, because they are ABOVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING. And the worst part is YOU DONT WANT to understand how these photos are PRECISELY the sort of "pure" unmixed people who ORIGINALLY populated Asia and much of the planet, which is WHY they are called aboriginal and NONE of them are African.
But as you said you prefer to ignore the truth....
Which is precisely the point.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I draw the conclusion that the first Americans were Africans based on the evidence. I am not like you waiting for Europeans to tell me what to think. I look at the evidence and reach my own conclusions based on that evidence.
This is how science operates . You make a theory hypothesis, collect the data and confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
Let me show you how this operates. First you make the research questions, and form your hypotheses.
Research Questions.
Q1. How did AMH reach America when the Beringa was covered with ice between 110kya and 13kya? This ice sheet made it impossible for AMH to cross into the American continent.
Q2.If people crossed the Beringa when the ice melted why are artifacts and skeletal remains relating to the colonization of America by AMH date back 32k BP?
Q3.Why are ancient skeletal remains found on the eastern side of the Americas near the Atlantic ocean currents, instead of the West coast which is nearest Asia?
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The first Anatomically modern humans (AMH) to settle the New World probably came from Africa.
H2. If the first AMH were from Africa, the skeletons of the ancient Americas would be similar to Africans.
H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
H3.The craniometrics indicate that the first inhabitants appear to resemble San, as does some of the reconstructions of faces based on the craniometrics.
H4. The identical STRs of Fuegians and San show a genetic relationship. There are reports of pygmies in various parts of South America especially Brazil. This suggest that the San and the pygmies introduced haplogroups A and B to the Americas. These genes are found in contemporary Amerind groups.
These findings confirm my hypothesis. I must accept that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa, and that they were probably San, not Australians who represent the OOA population.
Now I hope you understand how researchers reach their own conclusions instead of waiting for someone to tell them how to think.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Here is the evidence.
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.
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.
posted
The Fuegians carry the same STRs as Africans based on the research literature as evidence I provide two citations.
Citation One (1)
quote: Titre du document / Document title Early population differentiation in extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia: Ancient mtDNA sequences and Y-chromosome STR characterization = Différentiation des populations anciennes chez les aborigènes éteints de la Patagonie-Terre de Feu : Séquences d'ADNmt et caractérisation STR du chromosome Y Auteur(s) / Author(s) GARCIA-BOUR Jaume (1) ; PEREZ-PEREZ Alejandro (1) ; ALVAREZ Sara (1) ; FERNANDEZ Eva (1) ; LOPEZ-PARRA Ana Maria (1 2) ; ARROYO-PARDO Eduardo (1 2) ; TURBON Daniel (1) ; Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s) (1) Secció d'Antropologia, Departament de Biologia Animal, Universitat de Barcelona, 08028 Barcelona, ESPAGNE (2) Laboratorio de Biologia Forense, Departamento de Toxicología y Legislación Sanitaria, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, ESPAGNE Résumé / Abstract Ancient mtDNA was succesfully recovered from 24 skeletal samples of a total of 60 ancient individuals from Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego, dated to 100-400 years BP, for which consistent amplifications and two-strand sequences were obtained. Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) and the biallelic system DYS199 were also amplified, Y-STR alleles could be characterized in nine cases, with an average of 4.1 loci per sample correctly typed. In two samples of the same ethnic group (Aonikenk), an identical and complete eight-loci haplotype was recovered. The DYS199 biallelic system was used as a control of contamination by modern DNA and, along with DYS19, as a marker of American origin. The analysis of both mtDNA and Y-STRs revealed DNA from Amerindian ancestry. The observed polymorphisms are consistent with the hypothesis that the ancient Fuegians are close to populations from south-central Chile and Argentina, but their high nucleotide diversity and the frequency of single lineages strongly support early genetic differentiation of the Fuegians through combined processes of population bottleneck, isolation, and/or migration, followed by strong genetic drift. This suggests an early genetic diversification of the Fuegians right after their arrival at the southernmost extreme of South America. Revue / Journal Title American journal of physical anthropology ISSN 0002-9483 Source / Source 2004, vol. 123, no4, pp. 361-370 [10 page(s) (article)] (47 ref.)
Here Garcia Bour et al note that: Fuegian Y-chromosomes STRs include “Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) “
Citation Two (2)
quote: Diversity of Y-STR haplotypes of chromosomes belonging to hgA1 and within the R surname. (a) Relationships of Y-STR haplotypes within hgA1. Weighted median joining network containing the 10-locus Y-STR haplotypes (DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS389II-I) of eleven hgA1 chromosomes. Circles represent haplotypes, with area proportional to frequency and colored according to population.
European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 288–293. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201771; published online 24 January 2007 Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy Turi E King1
In this paper, King et al make it clear that the “Y-STR haplotypes (DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS389II-I) of eleven hgA1 chromosomes.[/b] “ belong to hg A1.
Note that Garcia Bour et al maintains Fuegians carry these STRs
You don’t have to be brain scientist to recognize that concordance exist between the two sets of STRs.
It stands to reason that if the Fuegians carry Y-STRs associated with haplogroup A1 which is an African haplogroup, the Fuegians have direct African ancestry.
This led me to reach the following conclusion based on the evidence:
quote: Researchers have been able to recover mtDNA samples from 24 out of 60 ancient skeletons from Tierra del Fuego dating to 100-400BP. The y chromosome STRs were DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al below). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 are characteristic of haplogroup A1 (see: King et al, below). A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup. This genetic data make it clear that Negro Fuegians were living in Fuego, 9000 years after Neves believed they had been replaced by mongoloid folk.
The fact that KIK and rasol, individuals who we can assume have normal intelligence could not see the relationship between the Y-chromosomes in these populations makes it clear that they must be a victim of “Knowledge blindness”. A psychosis resulting from their acceptance of their own inferiority and white supremist ideas.
. Stop trying to steal the heritage of the First African Americans.
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 not Australians.
posted
The Fuegians and Khoisan share many cultural features. Note the house construction of these populations.
The signature six microsatellites in YAP and M174 are DYS19, DYS388,DYS390, DYS5391,DYS392 and DYS393. These microsatellites that usually define M174, are also found among the Khoisan.
This indicates that the Fuegians carry genes introduced by the Khoisan who would have been the first people to colonize Americas.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, you simply are making up stuff and do not know what on earth you are talking about. So please spare us your fake images and made up nonsense about what these people looked like.
I don't make things up. Here is the photo in question from the museum site.
Here is the picture along with the other Fuegian photographs
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, you simply are making up stuff and do not know what on earth you are talking about. So please spare us your fake images and made up nonsense about what these people looked like.
I don't make things up. Here is the photo in question from the museum site.
Here is the picture along with the other Fuegian photographs
I don't need to lie about anything.
.
Can you give me the site's url?
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
This man is an amerindian/black mix,meaning that Fuegians aren't African, but Asiatic.This man is mixed, he does not represent Fuegians.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde, you simply are making up stuff and do not know what on earth you are talking about. So please spare us your fake images and made up nonsense about what these people looked like.
I don't make things up. Here is the photo in question from the museum site.
Here is the picture along with the other Fuegian photographs
Pmeast writes: This man is an amerindian/black mix,meaning that Fuegians aren't African, but Asiatic.This man is mixed, he does not represent Fuegians.
________________
Doug writes: Which means that you IGNORE THOSE FACTS that do not agree with your silly point of view. You are adhering to OUTDATED race typologies that have NO BEARING and NO RELATIONSHIP to the truth of human population migrations and therefore is the reason why you cannot HANDLE those pictures, because they are ABOVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING. And the worst part is YOU DONT WANT to understand how these photos are PRECISELY the sort of "pure" unmixed people who ORIGINALLY populated Asia and much of the planet, which is WHY they are called aboriginal and NONE of them are African.
But as you said you prefer to ignore the truth....
Which is precisely the point.
Marc writes: The full quote is the following which states that I don’t rehash what has been heavily researched (in your case, sub-races) but focus on the ignored, for want of a better word, pure(r) African.
THE THREE GREAT RACES AND THEIR MERGERS: The three great races are the Mongul, the White, and African. Until near 2300 BC, they were completely isolated from each other but since have mixed creating new sub-races as in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The present work focuses not on the sub-races or Mongul or White but African. And, why? Much has been written about the others but the African is usually passed-over as being but a yawn; an insignificant footnote to history. Especially when contributions to civilization are concerned. There is, thus, an information vacuum or information gap. Here the attempt is made to bridge that gap. http://www.beforebc.de/index2.html
Whites took African lands. Whites took African wealth. Whites took African bodies using them as slaves. Whites have taken African religion claiming it for themselves.
I am not going to stand by and have another white (YOU) dictate who and what an African is or isn’t.
Not a geographical definition but morphological - color aside, Africans are typically those with full facial features given to woolly or wiry hair. Does this include Tony Blair types? Does this include the likes of NBC's Connie Chung?
Get real. As I said before, go screw yourself.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Pmeast writes: This man is an amerindian/black mix,meaning that Fuegians aren't African, but Asiatic.This man is mixed, he does not represent Fuegians.
________________
Doug writes: Which means that you IGNORE THOSE FACTS that do not agree with your silly point of view. You are adhering to OUTDATED race typologies that have NO BEARING and NO RELATIONSHIP to the truth of human population migrations and therefore is the reason why you cannot HANDLE those pictures, because they are ABOVE YOUR UNDERSTANDING. And the worst part is YOU DONT WANT to understand how these photos are PRECISELY the sort of "pure" unmixed people who ORIGINALLY populated Asia and much of the planet, which is WHY they are called aboriginal and NONE of them are African.
But as you said you prefer to ignore the truth....
Which is precisely the point.
Marc writes: The full quote is the following which states that I don’t rehash what has been heavily researched (in your case, sub-races) but focus on the ignored, for want of a better word, pure(r) African.
THE THREE GREAT RACES AND THEIR MERGERS: The three great races are the Mongul, the White, and African. Until near 2300 BC, they were completely isolated from each other but since have mixed creating new sub-races as in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The present work focuses not on the sub-races or Mongul or White but African. And, why? Much has been written about the others but the African is usually passed-over as being but a yawn; an insignificant footnote to history. Especially when contributions to civilization are concerned. There is, thus, an information vacuum or information gap. Here the attempt is made to bridge that gap. http://www.beforebc.de/index2.html
Whites took African lands. Whites took African wealth. Whites took African bodies using them as slaves. Whites have taken African religion claiming it for themselves.
I am not going to stand by and have another white (YOU) dictate who and what an African is or isn’t.
Not a geographical definition but morphological - color aside, Africans are typically those with full facial features given to woolly or wiry hair. Does this include Tony Blair types? Does this include the likes of NBC's Connie Chung?
Get real. As I said before, go screw yourself.
. .
Sorry, Fuegians aren't African.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
[rASHOL writes] Dr. Winters, your discourse may be suitable for confusing the likes of Marc Washington, but to any serious scholar, it consists of and utterly broken logic.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington:I am not going to stand by and have another white (YOU) dictate who and what an African is or isn’t.
I am mixed, not white. 4/16 black to be exact.
quote:Not a geographical definition but morphological - color aside, Africans are typically those with full facial features given to woolly or wiry hair.
Wrong, there are many types of Africans, not all of them are the same.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, Paleolithic people will look like the Bushmen because the Bushmen are also Paleolithic,all Paleolithic individuals will share some similarities to each other despiting having also differences, but they aren't Black African,Fuegian are Paleolithic type Asians who logically share some resemblance to Khoisan and Bushmen because they are also Paleolithic people.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I draw the conclusion that the first Americans were Africans based on the evidence. I am not like you waiting for Europeans to tell me what to think. I look at the evidence and reach my own conclusions based on that evidence.
This is how science operates . You make a theory hypothesis, collect the data and confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
Let me show you how this operates. First you make the research questions, and form your hypotheses.
Research Questions.
Q1. How did AMH reach America when the Beringa was covered with ice between 110kya and 13kya? This ice sheet made it impossible for AMH to cross into the American continent.
Q2.If people crossed the Beringa when the ice melted why are artifacts and skeletal remains relating to the colonization of America by AMH date back 32k BP?
Q3.Why are ancient skeletal remains found on the eastern side of the Americas near the Atlantic ocean currents, instead of the West coast which is nearest Asia?
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The first Anatomically modern humans (AMH) to settle the New World probably came from Africa.
H2. If the first AMH were from Africa, the skeletons of the ancient Americas would be similar to Africans.
H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
H3.The craniometrics indicate that the first inhabitants appear to resemble San, as does some of the reconstructions of faces based on the craniometrics.
H4. The identical STRs of Fuegians and San show a genetic relationship. There are reports of pygmies in various parts of South America especially Brazil. This suggest that the San and the pygmies introduced haplogroups A and B to the Americas. These genes are found in contemporary Amerind groups.
These findings confirm my hypothesis. I must accept that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa, and that they were probably San, not Australians who represent the OOA population.
Now I hope you understand how researchers reach their own conclusions instead of waiting for someone to tell them how to think.
.
Clyde, you miss your own point which is that ALL AMH came from Africa so ALL OOA AMH would have similarities to Africans, whether they be in Asia, America, Europe or anywhere else. How on earth can you be so obtuse and not catch the obvious. The first Asians resembled Africans. The first Europeans resembled Africans. The first Americans resembled Africans. Why is that? ALL humans originate in Africa so ALL OOA aboriginal populations have traits from Africa. These traits were maintained and passed down for THOUSANDS of years and therefore, the first Americans who CAME FROM ASIA, also had African traits. THAT is what the evidence shows. There IS NO evidence that the first Americans came directly from Africa.
The only thing you are doing is contradicting yourself, because you want to pretend that the first Asians and first Indians and first Arabians were somehow DIFFERENT from the first Americans. But ALL first populations world wide have the SAME features in common which are Aboriginal Australian/African. What you are doing is making up nonsense.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
That Paleolithic people share the same similarities, they are Paleolithic, so they all have stocky bodies an broad faces, because that is how all humans looked on that period.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I draw the conclusion that the first Americans were Africans based on the evidence. I am not like you waiting for Europeans to tell me what to think. I look at the evidence and reach my own conclusions based on that evidence.
This is how science operates . You make a theory hypothesis, collect the data and confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
Let me show you how this operates. First you make the research questions, and form your hypotheses.
Research Questions.
Q1. How did AMH reach America when the Beringa was covered with ice between 110kya and 13kya? This ice sheet made it impossible for AMH to cross into the American continent.
Q2.If people crossed the Beringa when the ice melted why are artifacts and skeletal remains relating to the colonization of America by AMH date back 32k BP?
Q3.Why are ancient skeletal remains found on the eastern side of the Americas near the Atlantic ocean currents, instead of the West coast which is nearest Asia?
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The first Anatomically modern humans (AMH) to settle the New World probably came from Africa.
H2. If the first AMH were from Africa, the skeletons of the ancient Americas would be similar to Africans.
H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
H3.The craniometrics indicate that the first inhabitants appear to resemble San, as does some of the reconstructions of faces based on the craniometrics.
H4. The identical STRs of Fuegians and San show a genetic relationship. There are reports of pygmies in various parts of South America especially Brazil. This suggest that the San and the pygmies introduced haplogroups A and B to the Americas. These genes are found in contemporary Amerind groups.
These findings confirm my hypothesis. I must accept that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa, and that they were probably San, not Australians who represent the OOA population.
Now I hope you understand how researchers reach their own conclusions instead of waiting for someone to tell them how to think.
.
Clyde, you miss your own point which is that ALL AMH came from Africa so ALL OOA AMH would have similarities to Africans, whether they be in Asia, America, Europe or anywhere else. How on earth can you be so obtuse and not catch the obvious. The first Asians resembled Africans. The first Europeans resembled Africans. The first Americans resembled Africans. Why is that? ALL humans originate in Africa so ALL OOA aboriginal populations have traits from Africa. These traits were maintained and passed down for THOUSANDS of years and therefore, the first Americans who CAME FROM ASIA, also had African traits. THAT is what the evidence shows. There IS NO evidence that the first Americans came directly from Africa.
The only thing you are doing is contradicting yourself, because you want to pretend that the first Asians and first Indians and first Arabians were somehow DIFFERENT from the first Americans. But ALL first populations world wide have the SAME features in common which are Aboriginal Australian/African. What you are doing is making up nonsense.
You foolish moron.
You can't understand stupid because you know nothing about research and you disrespect African researchers. Coconut you don't know anything about research so it dosen't matter what you think.
Reading some of your post I thought you were intelligent but after your behavior on this thread: calling me names and then calling me a liar shows that you are nothing more than a coconut trying to appear smart by saying what ever Europeans support, and attacking any Black/African who thinks for himself
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
These Fuegians do not look alike. The Fuegian on the left has classic African features. The Fugean on the right has the broad face characteristics of Asians. This person fits the type associated with the original--first Americans.
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.
The Fuegian on the left clearly resembles contemporary Africans and the first African Americans in Mexico and South America.
These Fuegians do not look alike. The Fuegian on the left has classic African features. The Fugean on the right has the broad face characteristics of Asians. This person fits the type associated with the original--first Americans.
The first one is an Amerindian/african mix and the second is a unmixed Amerindian.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
That Paleolithic people share the same similarities, they are Paleolithic, so they all have stocky bodies an broad faces, because that is how all humans looked on that period.
You are wrong. The first Americans did not have broad faces. Contemporary Amerinds on the otherhand do have broad faces.
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.
The first African Americans did not have braod faces as you contend.
As you see the first African look different to the second one, because the second one is an unmixed African man, meanwhile the first is mixed with Amerindian.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: The Fuegian on the left clearly resembles contemporary Africans and the first African Americans in Mexico and South America.
Yea, as a result of the slave trade. This guy sure doesn't look like a Khoisan to me either. Clyde you're deluding your own mind with pseudo nonsense.
quote:Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) and the biallelic system DYS199 were also amplified, Y-STR alleles could be characterized in nine cases, with an average of 4.1 loci per sample correctly typed.
The analysis of both mtDNA and Y-STRs **revealed** DNA from ***Amerindian*** ancestry. The observed polymorphisms are consistent with the hypothesis that the ancient Fuegians are close to populations from south-central ***Chile and Argentina***
Note Clyde, the Y STRs you're attributing to Fuegians, are actually STR's in which were amplified in the study, but the analysis clearly reveals Mtda and Y-STRs of Native American ancestry, not recent post OOA. Sorry Clyde, just more misinterpretations of genetics on your part.
quote: Y Chromosome-Specific STRs By Leonor Gusmão1 and Angel Carracedo2 1Instituto de Patologia e Imunologia, Molecular da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal and 2Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Y-STRs are the most used Y chromosome markers in the forensic field due to their typing simplicity and high level of diversity. STR typing involves simple and reliable polymerase chain reaction (PCR)(a) techniques and is tolerant of very degraded samples. Of all Y chromosome polymorphic STRs described to date, DYS19, DYS385, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393 and YCAII have more data accumulated, being the most used in population and forensic genetics. Because of collaborative efforts to construct large databases (see www.ystr.org,www.ystr.org/usa and www.ystr.org/asia), these markers are the best characterized for amplification performance and specificity, multiplex amplification strategies, sequence structure and nomenclature, as well as worldwide allele frequency distributions.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Marc writes PMeast. You made a comment about Paleolithic people and Bushmen. I presented a page showing the people you were speaking of and asked what your point was.
You wrote: That Paleolithic people share the same similarities, they are Paleolithic, so they all have stocky bodies an broad faces, because that is how all humans looked on that period.
It is not true that they all had stocky bodies. Paleolithic women seem to be inclined to have stocky bodies but not the men. The earliest image of a man is 25,000 years ago from the Ukraine – a thin, black stick figure [#1].
This same thin body type is found from Paleolithic times down through the beginnings of the Egyptian hieroglyphics: From Paleolithic, through Mesolithic, through the Holocene, down through the Epipaleolithic, the Neolithic, and Bronze Age.
posted
What??? You guys need to shut up when you don't know what in hell you're talking about thus making fools of yourselves and misleading others too lazy or like yourselves inattentive of the details given on the webpage.
I do not doubt the high probability of the above photos being taken in the 19th century on the 1872 - 1876 voyage of the Challenger and being that of a Kru on board as one of the shipmates though the photo technology seems more early to mid 20th century to my eye.
These Fuegians do not look alike. The Fuegian on the left has classic African features. The Fugean on the right has the broad face characteristics of Asians. This person fits the type associated with the original--first Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: The Fuegian on the left clearly resembles contemporary Africans and the first African Americans in Mexico and South America.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What??? You guys need to shut up when you don't know what in hell you're talking about thus making fools of yourselves and misleading others too lazy or like yourselves inattentive of the details given on the webpage.
These men both (or this man front&profile) are Kru, an ethny in Liberia
I once read most of the Africans in Guyana are from the Kru (Liberia), do you have any info on this?
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
The first African Americans did not have braod faces as you contend.
. [/QB]
Yes, some Indians were paleolithic, but others weren't,Amerindian people also have diversity, there are broad-faced Indians like the Souht Amrican Indians, and non-broad faced Indians as the ones in Central and South America, who are of a more modern morphology.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
PMeast. You wrote, "Early europeans were Paleolithic people as the Sanid..."
I've never heard of the "Sanid." Who or what were they?
Someone wrote, "Non Africans by definition are the descendants of the Out of Africa migrants who went on to settle Eurasia and Oceania, Australia and the Americas."
What race is Jay Leno?
What race is Mao Tse Tung?
What race is Michael Jordan?
We define these people by the way they look and the big nose, big lip people are African. Not geographically but morphologically so the person who wrote "Non Africans by definition are the descendants of the Out of Africa migrants who went on to settle Eurasia and Oceania, Australia and the Americas."
is wrong. Those people in Eurasia, Oceania, Australia, and the Americas who resemble Michael Jordan (more than they resemble Tony Blair or Mao Tse Tung) are African by phenotype.
. .
This is also a great point that you have made Marc!..., Before I make my own point about this very issue of what and who may or may not be of African descent.. That is the issue here isn't it?....
So Must read this entire forum of the Paleo American aspect!..
posted
You say he is a Kru. The museum list him as a Fuegian.
I am going to list him as Fuegian until the museum changes its designation in the image section of its catalogue.
Here is the picture along with the other Fuegian photographs
.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What??? You guys need to shut up when you don't know what in hell you're talking about thus making fools of yourselves and misleading others too lazy or like yourselves inattentive of the details given on the webpage.
I do not doubt the high probability of the above photos being taken in the 19th century on the 1872 - 1876 voyage of the Challenger and being that of a Kru on board as one of the shipmates though the photo technology seems more early to mid 20th century to my eye.
These Fuegians do not look alike. The Fuegian on the left has classic African features. The Fugean on the right has the broad face characteristics of Asians. This person fits the type associated with the original--first Americans.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote: The Fuegian on the left clearly resembles contemporary Africans and the first African Americans in Mexico and South America.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I draw the conclusion that the first Americans were Africans based on the evidence. I am not like you waiting for Europeans to tell me what to think. I look at the evidence and reach my own conclusions based on that evidence.
This is how science operates . You make a theory hypothesis, collect the data and confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
Let me show you how this operates. First you make the research questions, and form your hypotheses.
Research Questions.
Q1. How did AMH reach America when the Beringa was covered with ice between 110kya and 13kya? This ice sheet made it impossible for AMH to cross into the American continent.
Q2.If people crossed the Beringa when the ice melted why are artifacts and skeletal remains relating to the colonization of America by AMH date back 32k BP?
Q3.Why are ancient skeletal remains found on the eastern side of the Americas near the Atlantic ocean currents, instead of the West coast which is nearest Asia?
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The first Anatomically modern humans (AMH) to settle the New World probably came from Africa.
H2. If the first AMH were from Africa, the skeletons of the ancient Americas would be similar to Africans.
H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
H3.The craniometrics indicate that the first inhabitants appear to resemble San, as does some of the reconstructions of faces based on the craniometrics.
H4. The identical STRs of Fuegians and San show a genetic relationship. There are reports of pygmies in various parts of South America especially Brazil. This suggest that the San and the pygmies introduced haplogroups A and B to the Americas. These genes are found in contemporary Amerind groups.
These findings confirm my hypothesis. I must accept that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa, and that they were probably San, not Australians who represent the OOA population.
Now I hope you understand how researchers reach their own conclusions instead of waiting for someone to tell them how to think.
.
Clyde, you miss your own point which is that ALL AMH came from Africa so ALL OOA AMH would have similarities to Africans, whether they be in Asia, America, Europe or anywhere else. How on earth can you be so obtuse and not catch the obvious. The first Asians resembled Africans. The first Europeans resembled Africans. The first Americans resembled Africans. Why is that? ALL humans originate in Africa so ALL OOA aboriginal populations have traits from Africa. These traits were maintained and passed down for THOUSANDS of years and therefore, the first Americans who CAME FROM ASIA, also had African traits. THAT is what the evidence shows. There IS NO evidence that the first Americans came directly from Africa.
The only thing you are doing is contradicting yourself, because you want to pretend that the first Asians and first Indians and first Arabians were somehow DIFFERENT from the first Americans. But ALL first populations world wide have the SAME features in common which are Aboriginal Australian/African. What you are doing is making up nonsense.
You foolish moron.
You can't understand stupid because you know nothing about research and you disrespect African researchers. Coconut you don't know anything about research so it dosen't matter what you think.
Reading some of your post I thought you were intelligent but after your behavior on this thread: calling me names and then calling me a liar shows that you are nothing more than a coconut trying to appear smart by saying what ever Europeans support, and attacking any Black/African who thinks for himself
Actually, if you had any sense you would understand what I am saying. But you aren't interested in being 100% correct. You only care about an agenda and a form of histrionics that is high on propaganda and low on facts. To call yourself a historian and yet be so fundamentally wrong means that you are worse than some Eurocentric racists, because you are deceiving those you claim to be trying to help with FALSEHOODS as opposed to the facts.
But notice how in that whole reply of yours you didn't address the issue raised.
I wonder why? Because you know yourself that you don't make sense. If ALL AMH came from Africa then that makes ALL OOA populations world wide a subset of African features doesn't it? But you simply don't have enough common sense to understand that simple point, because you are too busy harping on a "true negro" stereotype, which is basically invalid to begin with.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
PMeast writes: one Indians were paleolithic, but others weren't,Amerindian people also have diversity, there are broad-faced Indians like the South Amrican Indians, and non-broad faced Indians as the ones in Central and South America, who are of a more modern morphology.
Marc writes: What do you base your comments on?
Below are pages that contain images (see pics of the Americas) of the original and non-Mongoloid so-called Amerindians (calling them Indians we remind ourselves that the bright fellow Columbus thought he was in India):
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What??? You guys need to shut up when you don't know what in hell you're talking about thus making fools of yourselves and misleading others too lazy or like yourselves inattentive of the details given on the webpage.
These men both (or this man front&profile) are Kru, an ethny in Liberia
I once read most of the Africans in Guyana are from the Kru (Liberia), do you have any info on this?
.
.
ARE THE GUYANESE BLACKS MOSTLY FROM KRU ETHNICITY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW??Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I draw the conclusion that the first Americans were Africans based on the evidence. I am not like you waiting for Europeans to tell me what to think. I look at the evidence and reach my own conclusions based on that evidence.
This is how science operates . You make a theory hypothesis, collect the data and confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis.
Let me show you how this operates. First you make the research questions, and form your hypotheses.
Research Questions.
Q1. How did AMH reach America when the Beringa was covered with ice between 110kya and 13kya? This ice sheet made it impossible for AMH to cross into the American continent.
Q2.If people crossed the Beringa when the ice melted why are artifacts and skeletal remains relating to the colonization of America by AMH date back 32k BP?
Q3.Why are ancient skeletal remains found on the eastern side of the Americas near the Atlantic ocean currents, instead of the West coast which is nearest Asia?
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The first Anatomically modern humans (AMH) to settle the New World probably came from Africa.
H2. If the first AMH were from Africa, the skeletons of the ancient Americas would be similar to Africans.
H3. Since the earliest Americans date back 32kya they may have been related to the San who took civilization to Europe around this time.
H4. If the San were the first settlers of America they probably left genetic evidence of their former presence.
These hypothesis were confirmed.
H1 & H2. Neves et al make it clear the ancient skeletons resemble Melanesians and Africans. Since they could be either one, I choose African.
I chose Africans because they are the closest to the sites where AMH have been found plus they had the naval technology as indicated by the Dufuna canoe to make the voyage.
H3.The craniometrics indicate that the first inhabitants appear to resemble San, as does some of the reconstructions of faces based on the craniometrics.
H4. The identical STRs of Fuegians and San show a genetic relationship. There are reports of pygmies in various parts of South America especially Brazil. This suggest that the San and the pygmies introduced haplogroups A and B to the Americas. These genes are found in contemporary Amerind groups.
These findings confirm my hypothesis. I must accept that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa, and that they were probably San, not Australians who represent the OOA population.
Now I hope you understand how researchers reach their own conclusions instead of waiting for someone to tell them how to think.
.
Clyde, you miss your own point which is that ALL AMH came from Africa so ALL OOA AMH would have similarities to Africans, whether they be in Asia, America, Europe or anywhere else. How on earth can you be so obtuse and not catch the obvious. The first Asians resembled Africans. The first Europeans resembled Africans. The first Americans resembled Africans. Why is that? ALL humans originate in Africa so ALL OOA aboriginal populations have traits from Africa. These traits were maintained and passed down for THOUSANDS of years and therefore, the first Americans who CAME FROM ASIA, also had African traits. THAT is what the evidence shows. There IS NO evidence that the first Americans came directly from Africa.
The only thing you are doing is contradicting yourself, because you want to pretend that the first Asians and first Indians and first Arabians were somehow DIFFERENT from the first Americans. But ALL first populations world wide have the SAME features in common which are Aboriginal Australian/African. What you are doing is making up nonsense.
You foolish moron.
You can't understand stupid because you know nothing about research and you disrespect African researchers. Coconut you don't know anything about research so it dosen't matter what you think.
Reading some of your post I thought you were intelligent but after your behavior on this thread: calling me names and then calling me a liar shows that you are nothing more than a coconut trying to appear smart by saying what ever Europeans support, and attacking any Black/African who thinks for himself
Actually, if you had any sense you would understand what I am saying. But you aren't interested in being 100% correct. You only care about an agenda and a form of histrionics that is high on propaganda and low on facts. To call yourself a historian and yet be so fundamentally wrong means that you are worse than some Eurocentric racists, because you are deceiving those you claim to be trying to help with FALSEHOODS as opposed to the facts.
But notice how in that whole reply of yours you didn't address the issue raised.
I wonder why? Because you know yourself that you don't make sense. If ALL AMH came from Africa then that makes ALL OOA populations world wide a subset of African features doesn't it? But you simply don't have enough common sense to understand that simple point, because you are too busy harping on a "true negro" stereotype, which is basically invalid to begin with.
What issue. You keep claiming that through evolution the populatiion of Asia changed over time and that the present population carry African genes.
This not my proposition. I am arguing that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa and they were not the original OOA population which is represented by the Australians due to the fact that the Beringa was under ice 110k-13kya.
You sound stupid. If there is a variety of Blacks who originated in Africa since 60kya as indicated by the craniometrics, how can you say that "that makes ALL OOA populations world wide a subset of African features doesn't it? ", when there could be only one OOA population.
Since there was only one OOA population your proposition can not be supported by the evidence as illustrated by the discusiion of the Melanesians and Australians, although they all belong to the Black Variety.
This makes your continued argument that present populations are the remnants of the OOA event stupid given the fact that all Black people don't look a like and there are various populations possessing different colors, facial characteristics and etc.
Coconut stop acting like a European. All Black people do not look alike stupid.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What??? You guys need to shut up when you don't know what in hell you're talking about thus making fools of yourselves and misleading others too lazy or like yourselves inattentive of the details given on the webpage.
These men both (or this man front&profile) are Kru, an ethny in Liberia
I once read most of the Africans in Guyana are from the Kru (Liberia), do you have any info on this?
.
.
ARE THE GUYANESE BLACKS MOSTLY FROM KRU ETHNICITY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW??
No. Most Kru served as workers for Europeans. Few came as slaves.
PMeast writes: Indians were paleolithic, but others weren't,Amerindian people also have diversity, there are broad-faced Indians like the South Amrican Indians, and non-broad faced Indians as the ones in Central and South America, who are of a more modern morphology.
Marc writes: What image do you have in mind of the Indians before Columbus? Those African in m phenotype are in that population. I believe you will rarely find such an abundance of "pure{r}" Africans in those lands today.
Whites came (and Monguls, too) admixing with the original African population creating today's population; but causing a "disappearance" and "amnesia" of the original folks in the process:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What??? You guys need to shut up when you don't know what in hell you're talking about thus making fools of yourselves and misleading others too lazy or like yourselves inattentive of the details given on the webpage.
These men both (or this man front&profile) are Kru, an ethny in Liberia
I once read most of the Africans in Guyana are from the Kru (Liberia), do you have any info on this?
.
.
ARE THE GUYANESE BLACKS MOSTLY FROM KRU ETHNICITY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW??
No. Most Kru served as workers for Europeans. Few came as slaves.
YES I KNOW THEY DIDN'T COME AS SLAVES BUT AS "INDENTURED SERVANTS" ALONG WITH THE INDIANS WHO CAME FROM PLACES LIKE CALCUTTA.
I'M JUST TRYING TO RE-CONSTRUCT MY HISTORY HERE PEOPLE. I'M AN INDIAN WHOSE GREAT GRANDFATHER CAME FROM CALCUTTA BUT I (ALONG WITH FATHER & GRANDFATHER) ARE ACTUALLY GUYANESE THOUGH WE PRESERVED MUCH OF OUR INDIAN CULTURE.
TELL ME THEN, WHERE ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE KRU THAT WERE TAKEN TO GUYANA TODAY? AND WHERE ELSE IN AFRICA DID THE GUYANASE BLACKS COME FROM?
THANKS CLYDE. Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
These Liberian discussions are interesting to me as I was born in Liberia when my parents were missionaries there. It feels like I am finding out about family.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Posted by Clyde fraud: What issue. You keep claiming that through evolution the populatiion of Asia changed over time and that the present population carry African genes.
This not my proposition. I am arguing that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Africa and they were not the original OOA population which is represented by the Australians due to the fact that the Beringa was under ice 110k-13kya.
You sound stupid. If there is a variety of Blacks who originated in Africa since 60kya as indicated by the craniometrics, how can you say that "that makes ALL OOA populations world wide a subset of African features doesn't it? ", when there could be only one OOA population.
Since there was only one OOA population your proposition can not be supported by the evidence as illustrated by the discusiion of the Melanesians and Australians, although they all belong to the Black Variety.
This makes your continued argument that present populations are the remnants of the OOA event stupid given the fact that all Black people don't look a like and there are various populations possessing different colors, facial characteristics and etc.
Coconut stop acting like a European. All Black people do not look alike stupid.
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution
(May 10, 2007) — Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours. The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.
Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the “Out Of Africa” theory was the existence of inconsistent evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those elsewhere on the “coastal expressway” – the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.
Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.
But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.
Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: “Although it has been speculated that the populations of Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”
At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago.
The new study also explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though the genetic record shows no evidence of interbreeding with Homo erectus, and indicates a single Palaeolithic colonisation event.
The DNA patterns of the Australian and Melanesian populations show that the population evolved in relative isolation. The two groups also share certain genetic characteristics that are not found beyond Melanesia. This would suggest that there was very little gene flow into Australia after the original migration.
Dr Toomas Kivisild, from the Cambridge University Department of Biological Anthropology, who co-authored the report, said: “The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
“There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding.”Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Diasporan West African communities: the Kru in freetown & liverpool Author: Diane Frost a Affiliation: a University of Liverpool,
DOI: 10.1080/03056240208704614 Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year Published in: Review of African Political Economy, Volume 29, Issue 92 June 2002 , pages 285 - 300 Subjects: African & Third World Politics; African Studies; European Politics; International Political Economy; Political Economic Studies; Formats available: PDF (English) Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions
Purchase Article: US$28.00 - buy now add to cart [ show other buying options ]
purchase type customer type online access payment method price Single Article Purchase Any 3 days credit card US$28.00 buy now add to cart Issue Purchase Any permanent credit card US$236.87 buy now add to cart
Sign In Online Sample Abstract This article will examine the experience of two transplanted communities of West African kru migrants. Originally from Liberia, these labour migrants became involved in both internal African migration as well as external migration to Europe. It will distinguish the cause and mechanism of migration within the broader development of British colonial activity in West Africa. Freetown and Liverpool will be examined in the context of these broader developments since they became two important centres in Kru diasporic settlement. Economic opportunities became the raison d'etre for Kru migration and this manifest itself in terms of short-term transient migration to the permanent establishment of thriving diasporic communities. Socio-political and historical conditions provided the broader parameters within which these peoples became 'scattered' across the globe over the last two hundred years or more. The historical and economic connections between the two ports of Liverpool and Freetown, and the role of the Kru in British maritime trade here influenced patterns of settlement and the nature of community organisation and development. The article will examine current theories to the study of diasporan communities and will draw on ethnographic research undertaken in Freetown and Liverpool.
quote:Originally posted by Lord Sauron:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by Lord Sauron:
quote:Originally posted by Lord Sauron:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What??? You guys need to shut up when you don't know what in hell you're talking about thus making fools of yourselves and misleading others too lazy or like yourselves inattentive of the details given on the webpage.
These men both (or this man front&profile) are Kru, an ethny in Liberia
I once read most of the Africans in Guyana are from the Kru (Liberia), do you have any info on this?
.
.
ARE THE GUYANESE BLACKS MOSTLY FROM KRU ETHNICITY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW??
No. Most Kru served as workers for Europeans. Few came as slaves.
YES I KNOW THEY DIDN'T COME AS SLAVES BUT AS "INDENTURED SERVANTS" ALONG WITH THE INDIANS WHO CAME FROM PLACES LIKE CALCUTTA.
I'M JUST TRYING TO RE-CONSTRUCT MY HISTORY HERE PEOPLE. I'M AN INDIAN WHOSE GREAT GRANDFATHER CAME FROM CALCUTTA BUT I (ALONG WITH FATHER & GRANDFATHER) ARE ACTUALLY GUYANESE THOUGH WE PRESERVED MUCH OF OUR INDIAN CULTURE.
TELL ME THEN, WHERE ARE THE DESCENDANTS OF THE KRU THAT WERE TAKEN TO GUYANA TODAY? AND WHERE ELSE IN AFRICA DID THE GUYANASE BLACKS COME FROM?
quote: Posted by Clyde Fraud: You know nothing about anthropology. Current physical anthropological research makes it clear there are 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.
^^^^^^^Clyde as has been explained to you time and time again. Australians, Melanesia's, New Guineans etc.. are all populations representative of OOA.
-------------------
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution
(May 10, 2007) — Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours. The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.
Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.
The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the “Out Of Africa” theory was the existence of inconsistent evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those elsewhere on the “coastal expressway” – the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.
Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.
But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.
Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: “Although it has been speculated that the populations of Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”
At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago.
The new study also explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though the genetic record shows no evidence of interbreeding with Homo erectus, and indicates a single Palaeolithic colonisation event.
The DNA patterns of the Australian and Melanesian populations show that the population evolved in relative isolation. The two groups also share certain genetic characteristics that are not found beyond Melanesia. This would suggest that there was very little gene flow into Australia after the original migration.
Dr Toomas Kivisild, from the Cambridge University Department of Biological Anthropology, who co-authored the report, said: “The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
“There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding.”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