quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
^^^So A-hole - you're saying that I need a White man to tell me what I see??? Are you sure you're a PR and not one of those programed Negroes - oh wait Black PRs are programed Negroes - sorry I forgot.

---

It really doesn't matter what you see or want to see, what you don't realize, or simply don't want to realize, is Asians have broad features just the same you're considering to be exclusively African. You're stereotyping Asians to where they have to look a certain way(Mongoloid), just like Euro-centrists stereotype Africans(Negroid). Plain and simple.


As we can see you're another Artful Dodger....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
^^^Since you understand it so well; then please summorize your position, so that I will know exactly what it is that I am to argue against. You are all over the place, which makes it hard to comprehend what your position is.

---

You're simply just to slow to understand my position(which is the position amongst modern mainstream scienctists), I get it. I'll help you out though.


Please tell me how the hell do you call OOA Oceanics, African when you find them in Europe, China and the Americas?

You do understand that the world was populated over 60kya by Africans walking OOA, in which their lineages became non African, and became the founder lineages for all non Africans. Of course everyone comes from Africa, original populations resembled OOA migrants for tens of thousands of years before they morphologically changed into their present day phenotype, which is why you don't find cold adapted skeletons in Europe until after the Mesolithic, this is pretty much what it is around the world. It was not multiple migrations OOA everytime they find Africans around the ancient world. Australians are still black but are not African, neither are the other populations found throughout the ancient world sorry. The population in which does possess post OOA lineages are Europeans, they admit this admixture into their own population, but yet as I said you think they're denying lineages into another population they(Europeans) have nothing to do with?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
^^^^There was no influence or borrowing of any kind, these people came from Asia, whatever they learned, comes from their journey from Africa through Asia into the Americas.

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

^^^^^As we can see from the above, what I have been saying, and my conclusions are supported by anthropology archaeology and genetics. Mikes theory is debunked by his own citations that he doesn't understand.

---

 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^^^You are an idiot with an agenda - what could be worst - a double negative. You are not welcome here and will not be responded to.
 

---

Posted by HORUS of EDFU (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ LMAO . Projection of the highest order.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

^^^You are an idiot with an agenda - what could be worst - a double negative. You are not welcome here and will not be responded to.

---

^^^Excuses excuses, I know what could be
**worse** which is you lying and acting like a coward shying away in the face of confrontation.



You might want to take your tail from between your legs.


Btw...only one with an agenda is you, Clyde, Marc etc....


Pray tell, what about my post fits an agenda? I used your own sources against your imbecilic phony ***. Don't be upset now. You asked me a question I answered, it doesn't seem as if you have a response now, do you? No surprise!!
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Summary Continued:

Unlike Black, White, and Mongol, which are actual races. Amerindian is NOT a race; it is a subset which contains elements of all of the races. In the Americas, the ONLY evidence (so far found) of pure racial types, is of the Black race.

Logically then, everyone else is a mixture of something. Future posts to this thread will try to shed light on the mixtures that made up the ancient Amerindian populations of America.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Unlike Black, White, and Mongol, which are actual races.

---

quote:

---

Amerindian is NOT a race; it is a subset which contains elements of all of the races.

---

quote:

---

In the Americas, the ONLY evidence (so far found) of pure racial types, is of the Black race.

---

quote:

---

Logically then, everyone else is a mixture of something.

---

quote:

---

Future posts to this thread will try to shed light on the mixtures that made up the ancient Amerindian populations of America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
^^^[b]African is used euphemistically to say Black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Unlike Black, White, and Mongol, which are actual races. Amerindian is NOT a race

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Unlike Black, White, and Mongol, which are actual races. Amerindian is NOT a race

---

Yes, they are a sub-race of the Mongolid race.

---

There is no "Mongoloid race". There is a place called Mongolia though. Native Americans don't come from Mongolia, neither do all the other Asians falsely classified under this category.


Native Americans do come from Asia though.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
<<<<<<<<<<<<Blind leading the Blind>>>>>>>>>>>
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Headlines from heads

Note: The Pericues and the California Indians are the same people.

At the British Association for the Advancement of Science's Festival of Science 2004, geoarcheologist Silvia Gonzalez presented evidence that the Pericues, an extinct Baja California tribe, are genetically "closer to the ancient populations of southern Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Rim" than to the northern Asian populations that other Native Americans have been thought to have come from. Gonzalez also suggested that the two oldest known Americans (Kennewick Man and Peñon Woman) might have been from a similar background.


A Pericu skull.
Unlike the brachycephalic (short and broad) skulls of modern Amerind populations, the Pericu skulls were highly dolichocaphalic (long and thin), raising the possibility that they were a population not related to their Amerind neighbours.



Here's a press release from the Natural Environment Research Council, which sponsored the research, and a Discovery Channel report, which quotes Gonzalez as follows:

"... it is difficult to trace their point of origin as people 10,000 or 20,000 years ago did not look like their modern counterparts in many parts of the world, including Africa, Europe, and China.

"It is likely that southeast Asia 20,000 years ago was inhabited by people who more closely resembled present-day Polynesians or Australian aborigines so this could indeed be a source for the first Americans. They could have taken a coastal route to get there around the North Pacific Rim — it seems unlikely that they came directly across the Pacific."

For those who doubt the racist nature of White academia. Take note of how Whites depicted these Black people.



Discovery article, Claire Bowern:

DNA analysis of skulls found in Baja California that belonged to an extinct tribe called the Pericues reveal that the Pericues likely were not related to Native Americans and that they probably predated Native Americans in settling the Americas, according to an announcement Monday.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Thoughts on the Pericu

Bill Poser

A few comments on the report that DNA evidence suggests that the Pericú, an extinct tribe of Baja California, are more closely related to "the ancient populations of southern Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Rim" than to other Native Americans and peoples of the North Pacific Rim.

It is true that this proposal will likely provoke criticism from some Native Americans. Some groups believe that they were created where they are now and consider it offensive to suggest otherwise, and some are concerned that any suggestion that they are themselves immigrants will undermine their claim to their territory. Of course, such groups aren't keen on the Beringian theory either, since it denies that they originated in situ. The idea that there was an earlier migration is worse, though, since it makes them not only immigrants but latecomers. However, there is considerable diversity both of tradition and opinion. Many tribes have no tradition of being created where they are now or even have traditions of migration. And many recognize that prior possession is a perfectly adequate basis for their claims to their territory and that it doesn't matter whether they have been there since the creation.

There is actually another interpretation that should be acceptable to Native Americans who consider themselves autochthonous. They could say that whereas they have always been here, the Pericú were merely the earliest immigrants into the Americas. After all, the DNA evidence itself does not establish that the Pericú were in the Americas before them.

The argument by Johanna Nichols to which Mark referred is based on a survey of typological features of languages, that is, features like "the verb follows its object" or "distinguishes between first person inclusive and exclusive". Such features are not traditionally considered probative of genetic affiliation because there are only a few possibilities, so the probability of two languages sharing them is rather high. Nichols argues that by choosing the features one uses carefully and looking at complexes of features rather than isolated features one can obtain evidence for a historical relationship between languages. She concedes that it isn't possible by this method to distinguish between common descent and diffusion, but suggests that that isn't a fatal flaw, because it is interesting to know who has been in touch with whom, even if we can't tell what the nature of the relationship was. According to Nichols, languages along the Pacific Rim share a number of features that suggest a historical relationship among the languages. This is an interesting idea, but it isn't clear whether or not it really works. Questions have been raised both regarding the validity of the method in general and regarding particular features.

The idea that the Pericú represent an earlier, more southerly migration by boat and/or along the coast to the Americas is quite plausible. For one thing, all of the very early humans found in the Americas seem more closely to resemble Austronesians and Ainu than later American Indians; adistinct migration would explain this. Secondly, it is now I believe conclusively established that the Clovis culture was not the first in the Americas, but it is Clovis that most plausibly reflects the Beringian migration So the pre-Clovis peoples presumably reflect another migration. Thirdly, if everybody came via Beringia, we would expect to find a progression of sites from North to South. We don't. Indeed, there are very early sites, e.g. Monte Verde, in South America. This argument isn't as conclusive as it might be because we don't have an awful lot of early sites, and we can't date them with great precision, so if there were a progression but the movement were rapid we might not be able to resolve it. But if it is right that we don't see the progression we ought to, we have another fact that would be explained by one or ore arrivals on the Pacific coast. Fourth, there is tons of evidence that itis possible to travel by fairly primitive boats between Asia and the Pacific Coast. In addition to planned voyages, there could have been many cases of people being swept to the Americas by storms.

The lack of old sites along the Pacific Coast is not a counterargument to this hypothesis because most of what would have been the coast at the time was submerged at the end of the last ice age. Some archaeologists think that there may be a lot of sites underwater. These sites are presumably much more difficult to discover than, say, Bronze Age sites - it's hard to observe a lithic scatter on the ocean floor.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Pericu continued:


The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.

1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.

2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.


These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!


Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.


The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.




By Andrew Metz

Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.

In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.

"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."

After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.

Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.

The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.


This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Headlines from heads

Note: The Pericues and the California Indians are the same people.

At the British Association for the Advancement of Science's Festival of Science 2004, geoarcheologist Silvia Gonzalez presented evidence that the Pericues, an extinct Baja California tribe, are genetically "closer to the ancient populations of southern Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific Rim" than to the northern Asian populations that other Native Americans have been thought to have come from. Gonzalez also suggested that the two oldest known Americans (Kennewick Man and Peñon Woman) might have been from a similar background.


A Pericu skull.
Unlike the brachycephalic (short and broad) skulls of modern Amerind populations, the Pericu skulls were highly dolichocaphalic (long and thin), raising the possibility that they were a population not related to their Amerind neighbours.



Here's a press release from the Natural Environment Research Council, which sponsored the research, and a Discovery Channel report, which quotes Gonzalez as follows:

"... it is difficult to trace their point of origin as people 10,000 or 20,000 years ago did not look like their modern counterparts in many parts of the world, including Africa, Europe, and China.

"It is likely that southeast Asia 20,000 years ago was inhabited by people who more closely resembled present-day Polynesians or Australian aborigines so this could indeed be a source for the first Americans. They could have taken a coastal route to get there around the North Pacific Rim — it seems unlikely that they came directly across the Pacific."

For those who doubt the racist nature of White academia. Take note of how Whites depicted these Black people.



Discovery article, Claire Bowern:

DNA analysis of skulls found in Baja California that belonged to an extinct tribe called the Pericues reveal that the Pericues likely were not related to Native Americans and that they probably predated Native Americans in settling the Americas, according to an announcement Monday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
Knowledgeiskey718 wrote:

-------------------------------
There is no "Mongoloid race". There is a place called Mongolia though. Native Americans don't come from Mongolia, neither do all the other Asians falsely classified under this category.
-------------------------------


LOL! He's come out against the carlton coon style racial classification only after I called him out on it in a previous thread.

ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeee

---

They are Asian, i forgot about that, yes, they come from asia, so they are an asian people, not african.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Demise of the Pericu:

The Pericu's first known encounter with the advancing Spanish took place when Hernan Cortez visited and named the area around La Paz - today the capital of the Mexican state of Baja California Sur. Earlier encounters with explorers and traders are likely but have not been recorded. During the following centuries, mostly missionaries and perhaps a few traders took an interest in the primitive, materially poor and remote Pericu and the Guaycura.

As has happened so many times before and after, the attentions of outsiders (be they missionaries, bureaucrats or traders) proved lethal to the objects of their attention. By the end of the 18th century the Pericu had vanished, mostly despatched by the new diseases introduced by outsiders. The neighbouring Guyacura followed them into oblivion sometime during the 19th century.

Note: Because the "California Indians proper" are grouped with California Indians in general, I have not been able to find accurate information on when they became extinct.


JOKE OF THE DAY!
The White guy on the right is a chief of the Osage, the White woman with him is a member of the tribe. THESE are the people denying rights to Black Indians. If it wasn't so sick, it would be funny!



 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
<<<<<<<<<<<<Blind leading the Blind>>>>>>>>>>>

---

quote:

---

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

---

These Indians came from Africa, not Asia.


.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Anthropology supports the presence of Blacks in America when Columbus arrived in the region.Quatrefages in The Human Species , include the Choco, Manabis, Yaruras, Guarani, Charruas, Othomi (Otomi), Yamassi, Tzendal/Chontal, the Mandinga(a member of the Cunan group of Mexico), the Blacks of Quareca and numerous tribes along the Orinoco river in Venezuela and the Isthmus of Darien; not to mention the Black tribes of the United States southwest including a tribe reported by Cabeza de Vaca called Mandicas (< Mandinka).

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

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


Central America:





South America:





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

.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

These Indians came from Africa, not Asia.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

These Indians came from Africa, not Asia.


.

---

Those are blacks, not indians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Pericu continued:


The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.

1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.

2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.


These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!


Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.


The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.




By Andrew Metz

Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.

In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.

"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."

After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.

Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.

The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.


This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Pericu continued:


The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.

1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.

2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.


These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!


Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.


The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.




By Andrew Metz

Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.

In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.

"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."

After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.

Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.

The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.


This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya

---

Therefore, they aren't native Americans, but Africans, now you are using european concepts because they suit you, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Pericu continued:


The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.

1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.

2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.


These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!


Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.


The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.




By Andrew Metz

Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.

In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.

"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."

After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.

Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.

The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.


This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”

---

---

Irrelevant to the topic.

---

This is important in relation to the topic. It shows how the paleo-Indians have been erased from history and confirmation of the unbiased history of America written by anthropologists like Quatrefages.

You are a hypocrite. On the one hand you acknowledge that the popular view of the Americans is that they were Asians. Now we present evidence there were also Black/African Indians you dispute this view even though it is supported by eyewitnesses and archaeology.

Why are you attempting to steal the history of the Black Indians, and give it to the Asian Indians?

You are sad indeed.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Quetzacoatl


Due to the long history of Black/African Indians, many Asian Indians worshipped these Blacks as Gods. Two of the principal Black Gods was Quetzacoatl and Ekchuah.


.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde - Being a mid-westerner, you do not understand that you are dealing with Puerto Ricans - Perhaps the most racially confused people on the planet. They don't want to be Black, but they are not accepted as White, so many have taken to a "SUPPOSED" Taino Indian heritage. The nonsense that you are experiencing, is part of their search for an identity. It's best to leave them be.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Clyde - Being a mid-westerner, you do not understand that you are dealing with Puerto Ricans - Perhaps the most racially confused people on the planet. They don't want to be Black, but they are not accepted as White, so many have taken to a "SUPPOSED" Taino Indian heritage. The nonsense that you are experiencing, is part of their search for an identity. It's best to leave them be.

---

 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya

---

Therefore, they aren't native Americans, but Africans, now you are using european concepts because they suit you, isn't it?

---

No I am using European terms used to describe the people of America. Remember originally these term was applied to the people of India. If you which I will call them African Americans. Since they are native Americans I must describe them as Indian.

---

quote:

---

The Ch'olan sub-group of Mayan languages has three modern descendants: Ch'orti', Ch'ontal, and Ch'ol. Two extinct Mayan languages referred to above also belong to this sub-group: Ch'olti' and Acalan. There is some debate over how all these languages are to be classified internally. The traditional model (see for example Kaufman and Norman 1984: 81) has a two-branch classification with Acalan and its modern-day descendent Chontal comprising, along with Ch'ol, the 'Western Ch'olan' branch, and Ch'olti' and Ch'orti' as the two sub-branches of 'Eastern Ch'olan', as shown below.

From the late 1970s epigraphers and linguists began to work together to analyse the language(s) represented in the Maya hieroglyphs. One of the first of these collaborations was a 1979 conference held at the State University of New York in Albany (Justeson and Campbell, eds. 1984). During the conference both epigraphers and linguists suggested that the inscriptions recorded a form of Cholan (now spelled Ch'olan) and Yucatecan (now spelled Yukatekan) languages. Since the Albany conference researchers have unravelled many linguistic issues concerning the language(s) recorded in Maya hieroglyphic texts. Among these the most important (and hotly debated) concern the phonology (the sound system) and morphology (word formation) of the language(s), and which of the Ch'olan and Yukatekan languages were the language(s) involved in the inscriptions.


http://research.famsi.org/mdp/mdp_mayahiero.html

---

This explains the numerous Mayan images of African, as opposed to Asian Mayan Kings posted by Marc since as noted by Quatrefages the Chantal were Black/Negro
I.


II.


III.
Missing as maximum 8 images can be sent in any post. From Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico is the 3rd King. His name K'inich Janaab' Pakal-II, 742-746 AD.

IV.


V.


VI.


VII.


VIII.
Missing as maximum 8 images can be sent in any post.

XI.


X
Missing as maximum 8 images can be sent in any post.

XI



.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The African Indians founded writing among the Maya. We know that the Olmec introduced writing to the Americas but many people don't know that most epigraphers believe that it was the Chontal who invented Maya hieroglyphics.

The Chontal language is a member of the Cho’lan group. Many epigraphers consider the Mayan hieroglyphic writing to have been originally written in this language.

quote:

---

The Ch'olan sub-group of Mayan languages has three modern descendants: Ch'orti', Ch'ontal, and Ch'ol. Two extinct Mayan languages referred to above also belong to this sub-group: Ch'olti' and Acalan. There is some debate over how all these languages are to be classified internally. The traditional model (see for example Kaufman and Norman 1984: 81) has a two-branch classification with Acalan and its modern-day descendent Chontal comprising, along with Ch'ol, the 'Western Ch'olan' branch, and Ch'olti' and Ch'orti' as the two sub-branches of 'Eastern Ch'olan', as shown below.

From the late 1970s epigraphers and linguists began to work together to analyse the language(s) represented in the Maya hieroglyphs. One of the first of these collaborations was a 1979 conference held at the State University of New York in Albany (Justeson and Campbell, eds. 1984). During the conference both epigraphers and linguists suggested that the inscriptions recorded a form of Cholan (now spelled Ch'olan) and Yucatecan (now spelled Yukatekan) languages. Since the Albany conference researchers have unravelled many linguistic issues concerning the language(s) recorded in Maya hieroglyphic texts. Among these the most important (and hotly debated) concern the phonology (the sound system) and morphology (word formation) of the language(s), and which of the Ch'olan and Yukatekan languages were the language(s) involved in the inscriptions.


http://research.famsi.org/mdp/mdp_mayahiero.html

---

This explains the numerous Mayan images of African, as opposed to Asian Mayan Kings posted by Marc since as noted by Quatrefages the Chantal were Black/Negro


.

---

Remeber that those are statues, people don't look like statues.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
WHITE PEOPLE LIE !!!

<<<<<< About anything - not just history >>>>>>



Yahoo! News
Police: McCain volunteer made up robbery story
By JOE MANDAK, Associated Press Writer Joe Mandak, Associated Press Writer 9 mins ago

PITTSBURGH – A McCain campaign volunteer made up a story of being robbed, pinned to the ground and having the letter "B" scratched on her face in a politically inspired attack, police said Friday.

Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from College Station, Texas, admitted Friday that the story was false and was being charged with making a false report to police, said Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department's investigations division. Police doubted her story from the start, Bryant said.

Todd, who is white, told police she was attacked by a 6-foot-4 black man Wednesday night. She now can't explain why she invented the story, Bryant said.

Todd also told police she believes she cut the backward "B" onto her own cheek, but she didn't explain how or why, Bryant said.

Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM when the man approached her from behind, put a knife with a 4- to 5-inch blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away.

Todd told investigators that she suspected the man then noticed a John McCain sticker on her car, became angry and punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground and telling her "you are going to be a Barack supporter," police said.

She said he continued to punch and kick her while threatening "to teach her a lesson for being a McCain supporter," police said. She said he then sat on her chest, pinned her hands down with his knees and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife.

Todd told police she didn't seek medical attention, but instead went to a friend's apartment nearby and called police about 45 minutes later.

The Associated Press could not immediately locate Todd's family.

Bryant said somebody charged with making a false report would typically be cited and sent a summons. But because police have concerns about Todd's mental health, they are consulting with the Allegheny County District Attorney. She remained in custody and was awaiting arraignment.

Todd worked in New York for the College Republican National Committee before moving two weeks ago to Pennsylvania, where her duties included recruiting college students, the committee's executive director, Ethan Eilon, has said.

Eilon declined to comment on the investigation Friday or to help The Associated Press contact Todd.

Earlier Friday, police said they had found inconsistencies in Todd's story. They gave her a lie-detector test, but wouldn't release the polygraph results. Investigators also said bank surveillance photos did not back up the woman's initial story of being attacked at an ATM.

Police interviewed Todd after she contacted police Wednesday night and again on Thursday, Bryant said. They asked her to come back Friday, ostensibly to help police put together a sketch of the man. Instead, detectives began interviewing her.

"They just started talking to her and she just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth," Bryant said.

Bryant said it doesn't appear that anyone else put the woman up to the false report.

Police suspected all along that Todd might not be telling the truth, starting with the fact that the "B" was backward, Bryant said.

"We have robbers here in Pittsburgh, but they don't generally mutilate someone's face like that," Bryant said. "They just take the money and run."
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 
^
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Pericu continued:


The piece on the Pericu above is very important in that it demonstrates two things.

1) That the Mississippi Indians were indeed Black, and that consequently, Amerindian tribes (such as the Seminoles) who are known to be descendants of the Mississippi, also have a Black linage.

2) How the pernicious racism of White people, invades and pollutes everyone that they come in contact with.


These “New” White Seminoles (the result of crossbreeding with White people) – together with other Whites, of course needed a NEW history. So they created the myth that the Black nature of post-Columbian Seminoles was the result of admixture between Seminoles and Maroons and Black slaves. Creating a “New” history to suit their needs, is of course NOT new to White people – the same was done in Europe and the Middle East and North Africa. To show their unmitigated Gall, they even tried it in Egypt - a country which had ancient artifacts which proved their lies - I guess they were saying: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes. Oh yes - they have lots of gall!


Note how these modern “White” Seminoles, treat their ancestral fathers.


The "red-faced" White guy on the right is Seminole tribe Chief James Billie.




By Andrew Metz

Wewoka, Okla. -- Kenneth Chambers, chief of the Seminole Nation, is absolutely sure of the truth of the matter. "There is no black Seminole," he expostulated on a recent day, rising from his chair to drive the point home like a preacher warning of hell and damnation.

In this ink spot of an Indian town, however, not far from the tribe's headquarters on the Oklahoma prairie, the faces of Wewoka present a conflicting impression.

"My folks is Indian," said Roosevelt Davis, a man as dark as any of African descent. Walking through the long leaf pines he planted on land that has been his family's for almost 100 years, he put his hand on his chest and said simply, "I'm Seminole."

After two centuries of coexistence that has rarely made most history books, a chasm has opened between the descendants of the Seminole people, Indians and escaped slaves who banded together in Florida against the white onslaught and were eventually deposited here along what became known as the Trail of Tears.

Though history and intermingling made cousins of the two groups, time and money and the modern experiences of being black or Indian or both have chewed away at all they shared in common, leaving the ligaments of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma exposed and aching.

The blacks, still known around here as Freedmen, have been excluded from millions of dollars awarded to the Seminole in the early 1990s for the seizure of their land in Florida a century earlier. And three years ago they were stripped of their Seminole status altogether through the imposition of an ancestral blood standard for membership that few could prove.


This is how the Seminole USED to look, before they became “White”

---

(Re-posted to get back picture!)

---

Meanwhile......... These African Native Americans wouldn't dare spew the nonsense these idiots are spewing here. As they know who they are and where they come from. As explained below.


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

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





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


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

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


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

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




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


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


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



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



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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
^Correct many Black Indians were sold into slavery. This is why most African Indians disappeared in the America.

The only thing that saved many Asian Indians was that they were nomads.


Some my ancestors were Choctaw according to my mother. My wifes family on her father's side has direct Cherokee ancestry. My mother in-laws grand mother only "spoke Indian".

As you can see writing about the Paleo-Americans is just acknowledging part of my history--just like I write about continental African history.

.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^Correct many Black Indians were sold into slavery. This is why most African Indians disappeared in the America.

The only thing that saved many Asian Indians was that they were nomads.


Some my ancestors were Choctaw according to my mother. My wifes family on her father's side has direct Cherokee ancestry. My mother in-laws grand mother only "spoke Indian".

As you can see writing about the Paleo-Americans is just acknowledging part of my history--just like I write about continental African history.

.

---

quote:

---

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


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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Knowledge, again I ask why do you waste your time engagin folks with no scientific understanding not even of the very sources they cite??!
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The Mayan inscriptions from Palenque claim that the first ruler of this city was the Olmec leader U-Kix-chan. In addition, some Mayan kings were styled Kuk according to Mary Miller and Karl Taube,in "The Gods and symbols of ancient Mexico and Maya, said this term was also used in the Olmec inscriptions, like those from Tuxtla, to denote the local ruler of many Olmec sites. It was probably during this period of contact that the Maya began to copy Mande terms and incorporate them in their lexicon. It is time that we stop the name calling and work together to explain to the world the African presence in ancient America.


V.



XI



.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Because it pains me to see the illiteracy flowing around this board, and the feeble minds that accept it. Also these outrageous claims lower the standards of this site, as well as gives bigots the opportunity of a quick dismissal of our facts presented, in which they deem Afro-centric. Simply because we have people claiming everything to be African, from Marc to Clyde to Egmond Codfried. If these outrageous claims weren't addressed this site would go down the drain and be written off as a crazy Afro-centric site. I would love for this board to be moderated.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Pained me at first too, but then I got used to it! Sad but true.

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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html

5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.


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.\


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 by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The oldest Native Americans are the Fuegians. The Fuegians are neither Austroloid or Asian in appearence.

]

Above is a picture of a native Fuegian taken in 1856. This shows the native African Americans of Tierra del Fuego.

.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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





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


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

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


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

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




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


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


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



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



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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.


 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^So now the Khoisan migrated to the Americas? Lmao


Tell me Clyde, how do you dismiss actual anthropological studies, that confirm an Oceanic population in the Americas. In which this actual reconstruction was made off? Where the study, also said resembled Australians etc...?


Tell me Clyde where does your eyeball anthropological speculation of a reconstruction supersede the actual anthropological information?

Tell me Clyde, why do you agree with this reconstruction but don't agree with King Tuts reconstruction?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

Clyde, please keep that tongue twisting inverted logic to yourself.


You are talking about your own convoluted logic not mine and YOUR OWN attempts to confuse those terms to suit YOUR OWN point of view.

The FIRST populations of Asia were BLACK aboriginal people. These are the SAME types of people who originally populated the America. Yes they came from Asia but YES they were also black. NO they were not Africans, just like the Aborigines of Australia and New Guinea are NOT Africans. So keep that dumbness that blacks aren't the first Asians and Americans nonsense to yourself.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



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.

.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^All speculation, as you present NO anthropological studies, or genetic information confirming your theory.


As we can see as follows

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

quote:

---

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

---

These Indians came from Africa, not Asia.


.

---

quote:

---

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

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

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


Central America:





South America:





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

.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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, usually defined as 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.

.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
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}

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154116


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.


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15630565


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.)

Clyde, from the above, where do you draw your conclusions? What scientists agree with you? What exact correlations do these two Y-chromosome STRs share, that would admonish what scientists say, which is due to OOA populations, and not subsequent migrations OOA, being that Khoisan do carry the oldest lineages, and are said to be involved in OOA???


“Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388)


Y-STR haplotypes (DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS437, DYS438, DYS439, DYS389I, DYS389II-I)
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The morons don't realize that since *all* humans originated in Africa, all humans were black African. But then some humans left Africa over 60,000 years ago to populate the rest of the globe. How are these people still African if they were living outside of Africa for 50,000 years or more. If these paleo-Americans were 'African' then why not white Europeans, even though the latter is closer related to Africans via mixture?! LOL
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^^That's the whole point, they're a bunch of idiots who don't understand OOA, which is why we have thread such as whites are new to Europe from Medieval times, and a pansy claiming whites are African albinos who recently migrated into Europe to mix with native Europeans and African Europeans, to create whites.
 

---

Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
This report and population migration out of Africa simulation follows SMP OOA.
Nice movie showing migration patterns developed by tracing SNP data.
However, the authors attribute Bantu and Tuscan donors to Mayans due to post-Columbian admixture.

Inferring Human Colonization History Using a Copying Model

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

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

Inferring Human Colonization History Using a Copying Model

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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


.

---

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

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

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

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


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

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



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

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




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

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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

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

September 3, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient Floods, Giant Animals

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Learn more about how caves form.)

Human Migration Theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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


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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

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


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

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

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

---

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

[/b] Penon Woman[/b]




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

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

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



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

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


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



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

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



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

quote:

---

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


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


web page

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 




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

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

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

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




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

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

.

This is a bushman or San.




Hottentot




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

Venus Figurines



.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
This expansion of the San people or Bushman into Europe as the Cro-Magnon/Grimaldi people match the maps outlining the peopling of
the world 40kya. See:web page
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Clyde you don't make absolutely any sense. The aboriginal populations of Asia are the various aboriginal people of South Asia and the Philippines, the Australian aborigines and the aborigines of New Guinea. NONE of whom are grimaldi or bushmen. You are simply making up stuff as usual.

The people who FIRST migrated to the Americas were made up of Asian aboriginal types, which INCLUDES BOTH Aborigine types from Australia, Aboriginal types from New Guinea and people in between. They weren't all one TYPE and they WERE NOT AFRICANS other than those who did migrate directly to Africa during the last 100,000 years. But most of the modern populations of the Americas are not derived from direct African migrations. The gibberish in your last four posts does nothing to clarify the history of how the America was populated and instead relies on nonsensical stereotypical "types" that have no meaning or bearing to reality. The diversity of blacks is so ancient and diverse that it is IMPOSSIBLE to try and make claims that based on physical features alone, these populations were DIRECT migrants from any specific part of Africa as opposed to various types of blacks from Asia. And BLACKS, whether you call them negroids or negroes, are the ORIGINAL population of Asia idiot. THAT is where you keep trying to make a distinction between black and "negroid" that DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

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


The Hofmeyr Skull:

quote:Another member of the team, Katerina Harvati of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, made a detailed examination of the shapes, sizes and contours of all parts of the (Hofmeyr) skull. She compared these three-dimensional measurements with those of early human skulls from Europe and with skulls of living humans in Eurasia and southern Africa, including the Khoe-San, commonly known as the Bushmen.

Because the Bushmen are well represented in the more recent archaeological record, Dr. Harvati said, they were expected to bear a close resemblance to the Hofmeyr skull. Instead, the skull was found to be quite distinct from all recent Africans, including the Bushmen, she said, and it has “a very close affinity” with fossil specimens of Europeans living in the Upper Paleolithic, the period best known for advanced stone tools and cave art.


http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7367.full.pdf+html?sid=4fe8c6d0-a57b-49c0-ac09-a5f3a6e6b88f

European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*

"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."

"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.


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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


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

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

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

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

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


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


web page

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


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

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

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

.

---

Clyde those maps do not show any relationship between Africans and Native Americans.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 


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

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

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

This model is confirmed by other genetic data.

Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.

.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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


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

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

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











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

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


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

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
^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.

.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Follow-up on The Hofmeyr:

For the ignorant, of which Knowledgeiskey718 and prmiddleeastern are the main transgressors.

The khoisan

The hunters of today have no collective name for themselves. They use their own group names, such as Ju/'hoansi (people who live on the border between northern Namibia and Botswana) or Hai//om (people who live around Etosha National Park).

San = Sanqua = Soaqua was a name given to hunters by the Khoekhoen of the Cape. The word means 'people different from ourselves' and became associated with those without livestock, or people who stole livestock.

The name 'Bushman' or 'Bossiesman' was given to low status people by the Dutch settlers in the 1600's, and referred to those who collected their food off the land and had no domestic animals.

Khoekhoen = Khoikhoi = Kwena is a general name which the herding people of the Cape used for themselves. The word can be translated to mean 'the real people' or 'men of men', meaning 'we people with domestic animals' as opposed to the Sonqua or Bushmen who had none.

Khoesaan = Khoisan is a general term which linguists use for the click language of southern Africa. Physical anthropologists use it as a biological term to distinguish the aboriginal people of southern Africa from their black African farming neighbours.

From Wiki (sorry, I was in a hurry)

Khoisan (increasingly commonly spelled Khoesan or Khoe-San) is the name for two major ethnic groups of Southern Africa. Historically, they have been referred to as the Capoid race because they can be visually distinguished from most other sub-Saharan Africans by way of their relatively lighter skin color and their epicanthic folds. From the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, hunting and gathering cultures known as the Sangoan occupied southern Africa in areas where annual rainfall is less than 40 inches (1016mm)—and today's San and Khoi people resemble the ancient Sangoan skeletal remains. The Khoisan people were the original inhabitants of much of southern Africa before the southward Bantu expansion — coming down the east and west coasts of Africa — and later European colonization. Both Khoi and San people share physical and linguistic characteristics, and it seems clear that the Khoi branched forth from the San by adopting the practice of herding cattle and goats from neighboring Bantu-speaking groups.

As you can see; it is known that the Sangoan were there BEFORE the Khoisan. But because there are no Sangoan left alive, the Khoisan are all that we have to work with - Why?? Because the Khoisan People, have by genetic analysis been determined to be the closest to the original Homo-sapien sapien in genetic makeup, and thus, the worlds Oldest Humans - that's why.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Khoisan Follow-up:

Question for the Forum;
The Australoids were the FIRST Modern humans to leave Africa. The people who ended-up in China (such as the Jomon) were the next to leave. The Khoisan who entered Europe were the LAST to leave Africa.

Yet, the closest affinity of modern humans to original humans is with the Khoisan. It would seem to me, that the closest connection should be with the Australians - they supposedly lived in isolation for thousands of years. Does anyone know where they picked-up their polluting admixture and when?
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
In pondering the above question:

One possibility is that they did NOT live in isolation. Consider the following:


Egyptians in Australia
A News Article - 1996


Egyptian hieroglyphs found in New South Wales:


The hieroglyphs tell the tale of early Egyptian explorers, injured and stranded, in ancient Australia. The discovery centers around a most unusual set of rock carvings found in the National Park forest of the Hunter Valley, 100 km north of Sydney.

The enigmatic carvings have been part of the local folklore of the area for nearly a century with reports of people who sighted them as far back as the early 1900's.

The site was secretly visited by families "in the know" in the 1950's and fell back into local mythology for a couple of decades until it was accidentally rediscovered by a man looking for his lost dog.

The carvings are in a rock cleft, a large block of split sandstone on a cliff-face that has created a small chasm or "chamber" of two flat stone walls facing each other that widens out from two to four meters and is covered in by a huge flat rock as a "roof" at the narrow end.

The cleft is most cave-like and only accessible by a small rock chute from above or below, well disguised from the average bush-walker.

When you first come up the rock chute and climb into the stone hallway you are immediately confronted by a number of worn carvings that are obviously ancient Egyptian symbols. These are certainly not your average Aboriginal animal carvings, but something clearly alien in the Australian bush setting.
There are at least 250 hieroglyphs.

At the end of the chamber, protected by the remaining section of stone roof, is a remarkable life sized carving of the ancient Egyptian god "Anubis", the Judge of the Dead !

The hieroglyphs were extremely ancient, in the archaic style of the early dynasties.

This archaic style is very little known and untranslatable by most Egyptologists who are all trained to read Middle Egyptian upward.

The classic Egyptian dictionaries only handle Middle Egyptian, and there are few people in the world who can read and translate the early formative style.

Because the old style contains early forms of glyphs that correlate with archaic Phoenician and Sumerian sources one can see how the university researchers who saw them could so easily have thought them to be bizarre and ill-conceived forgeries.

The aging Egyptologist Ray Johnson, who had translated extremely ancient texts for the Museum of Antiquities in Cairo eventually was successful in documenting and translating the two facing walls of Egyptian characters - which stemmed from the Third Dynasty.

The rock walls chronicle a tragic saga of ancient explorers shipwrecked in a strange and hostile land, and the untimely death of their royal leader, "Lord Djes-eb".

A group of three cartouches (framed clusters of glyphs) record the name of "RA-JEDEF" as reigning King of the Upper and Lower Nile, and son of "KHUFU" who, in turn, is son of the King "SNEFERU".

This dates the expedition just after the reign of King Khufu (known in the Greek as "Cheops" reputed builder of the Great Pyramid) somewhere between 1779 and 2748 BC.

Lord Djes-eb may have actually been one of the sons of the Pharaoh Ra Djedef, who reigned after Khufu.

The hieroglyphic text was apparently written under the instruction of a ship's captain or similar, with the corner glyph on the wall displaying the title of a high official or chief priest.

The scribe is "speaking for his Highness, the Prince, from this wretched place where we were carried by ship."

The expedition's leader, as mentioned before is described in the inscriptions as the King's son, "Lord Djes-eb", who came to grief a long way from home.

The hieroglyphics sketch his journey and his tragic demise: "For two seasons he made his way westward, weary, but strong to the end.

Always praying, joyful, and smiting insects. He, the servant of God, said God brought the insects.

Have gone around hills and deserts, in wind and rain, with no lakes at hand.

He was killed while carrying the Golden Falcon Standard up front in a foreign land, crossing mountains, desert and water along the way.

He, who died before, is here laid to rest.
May he have life everlasting. He is never again to stand beside the waters of the Sacred Mer. MER meaning "love".

There was a moat around the pyramid called the "waters of Mer".

The second facing wall, which was much more seriously eroded, details the tragedy further.

This wall begins with the badly eroded glyph of a snake (Heft), with a glyph of jaws (to bite) and the symbol for 'twice'. The snake bit twice.

Those followers of the diving Lord "KHUFU", mighty one of Lower Egypt, Lord of the Two Adzes, not all shall return. We must go forward and not look back.

All the creek and river beds are dry. Our boat is damaged and tied up with rope.

Death was caused by snake. We gave egg-yolk from the medicine-chest and prayed to AMEN, the Hidden One, for he was struck twice."

Burial rituals, prayers and preparations are described.

"We walled in the side entrance to the chamber with stones from all around. We aligned the chamber with the Western Heavens."

The three doors of eternity were connected to the rear end of the royal tomb and sealed in.

We placed beside it a vessel, the holy offering, should he awaken from the tomb.

Separated from home is the Royal body and all others.

Visual observation of the site makes it obvious that the very worn carvings exposed to the coastal weather would have to be several centuries to a thousand years old at least.

When first found the site was completely overgrown with thick vegetation and filled in with smashed rock and a much higher soil line.

A number of excavation attempts by interested parties have not turned up any artifacts or bodies but sophisticated and expensive laser scanning techniques have not been applied.

There is significant evidence that the ancients were well aware of the Great South land.

There were both Sumerian and Mayan traditions of a "lost motherland" in the Pacific.

Australia appears under the name of "Antoecie" on the famous spherical world map of Crates of Mallos, even appearing on the Greek map of Eratosthenese in 239 BC.

It seems fairly certain that the maritime civilizations of antiquity were quite capable of extensive ocean voyages.

Particularly the early Egyptians, as evidenced by Giza's remarkable "Tomb of the Boat".

In the 1950's, a streamlined 4,500 year old, hundred foot, ocean going vessel was excavated from right next to the Great Pyramid.

In 1991 an entire fleet of even older boats was found buried in the desert at Abydos in Upper Egypt.

According to Cairo Times, in 1982, archaeologists working at Fayum, near the Siwa Oasis uncovered fossils of kangaroos and other Australian marsupials.

And there's also the strange set of golden boomerangs discovered by Prof. Carter in the tomb of Tutankhamen in 1922.







Comment: They traveled westward for two seasons. Where were they coming from: India, China, the Americas?
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

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

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


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

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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).

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html

5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.


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 by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



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.

.
.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

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.

---

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.

.

---

quote:

---

Please take special note: NOWHERE is it said that “European upper Paleolithic Europeans resembled Oceanic populations”

---

Mike, from the below, what population is closest to Hofmeyr? If the closest population to Hofmeyr, are not Oceanics than what population is closest?









 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 

quote:

---

You fail to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids /Australians representatives of the OOA population

---

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).

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.***

---

quote:

---

It is YOU who keeps referencing OUTDATED racialist research not me so YOU are the one who has WHITE SUPREMACY on the brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

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

quote:

---

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).

---

quote:

---

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

---

----------


A Three-Stage Colonization Model for the Peopling of the Americas

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001596


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.


.

---

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Doug

quote:

---

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.
  
  4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html
  
  5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
  
  6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
  
  7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

---

quote:

---

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


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


web page

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Doug

quote:

---

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.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Doug

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

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


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

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

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

---

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

[/b] Penon Woman[/b]




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

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

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



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

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


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





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."

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

---

quote:

---

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


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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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."

• Warwick Bray,"The Paleoindian debate". Nature 332, (10 March) 1988, p.107.
  
  "Man's New World arrival Pushed back", Chicago Tribune, (9 May 1991) Sec.1A, p.40;and A.L. Bryan, "Points of Order". Natural History , (June 1987) pp.7-11.
  
  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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
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}

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154116


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.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Olmec masks























 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Olmec Masks





















 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 















 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
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!!
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
^^^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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

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}

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154116


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.

---

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!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
All of those Olmec Masks shown above have Asian features.

---

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.

---

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 Clyde Winters:

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}

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1154116


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 Clyde Winters:

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:

---

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 by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

[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.

.
.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

Clyde you're delusional.

---

LMAO You realize that with Clyde Winters, the above is an understatment??
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Elmer calls himself the Thrice Great Djehuti? From a lineage of murderers? He calls someone delusional?



.
.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Doug

quote:

---

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.


.

---

quote:

---

Let's look at the facts:

1) the Australians represent the OOA population that settled Asia

---

quote:

---

Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde.

---

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).

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 



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 not Australians.

.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

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).

---

---

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.

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

---

In addition

quote:

---

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

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


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

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

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

---

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

[/b] Penon Woman[/b]




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

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

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



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

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


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

quote:

---

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

September 3, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ancient Floods, Giant Animals

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Learn more about how caves form.)

Human Migration Theories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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


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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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 European 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 by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.



.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
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.

4. David Bulbeck, Australian Aboriginal craniometrics as construed through FORDISC, 2005. Retrieved: 4/2/2008: http://arts.anu.edu.au/bullda/oz_craniometrics.html

5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.

7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.


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 by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


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.

---

quote:

---

You live in a fantasy world of your own making.

---

Oh nonsense. He simply lives in the present where most scientists no longer regurgitate the race schematic.

You live in the past.

I will give you some credit though for at least 'trying' a little to be more than the old dog who can't learn new tricks.

So let's examine your thoughts in this thread and see how well you do.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

The Amerinds come from Siberia, so we say they are Asians.

---

^ Who is we?

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.

American Indians, whether Mexican, Eskimo or Navaho are considered NATIVE Americans, which is what they are.

To claim they are 'Asians' because presumably some of their ancestors crossed into America from Siberia, is completely illogical.

You could just as easily call Native Australian Aboriginals "Asians" because they entered Australia from Southern Asia.

But, oh, I forgot you ignore that, and call them "Africans" instead, because 50 thousand years ago...their ancestors migrated into south Asian from Africa.

But wait.... these ancestors would be -THE SAME- ancestors as the ancestors that would become the Native Americans.

The idea that Native Australians are 'really' AFricans, and Native Americans are really Asians is pure incoherence.

Here, you are as bad, as loony-Euro-tunes claiming everything is Europid, or caucazoid that -never- originated in, either Europe or the Caucasus.

Anthropology ends, where ethnocentrism begins, and that's where you are trapped.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:



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 not Australians.

.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:

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).

---

---

---

quote:

---

You could just as easily call Native Australian Aboriginals "Asians" because they entered Australia from Southern Asia.

But, oh, I forgot you ignore that, and call them "Africans" instead, because 50 thousand years ago...their ancestors migrated into south Asian from Africa.

But wait.... these ancestors would be -THE SAME- ancestors as the ancestors that would become the Native Americans.

The idea that Native Australians are 'really' AFricans, and Native Americans are really Asians is pure incoherence.

---

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).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
All of those Olmec Masks shown above have Asian features.

---

You are right about some of the mask. But all of them do not look Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Indeed. Racialists run afowl of reality because they are glued to a fixed ideology.

But research and new facts are never ending, and long ago moved the the 'rug' out from under their feet.

They refer to those who keep up with current data as living in a 'dream', because they are more comfortable living in the past, where they can be safe from 'evil' genetics and all those terrible new findings that suggest things they don't like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.

---

^ Interesting as it implies you admit they are descendant of the aboriginal populations of Europe.... but.... no, we already know you claim the original European population was... African.

So, again, the ethnocentrism that drives your ideology, also cripples it, and renders it incoherent, and self defeating.

---

The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.

This is a bushman or San.




Hottentot




As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.

Venus Figurines



The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
[qb] [QUOTE] Most native American populations are descended from people like Australian Aborigines Clyde.

---

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).
Clyde you do understand that you didn't address the above, or discuss your claim of A2 and B2 being African in origin, carried by Khoisan and Pygmies respectively. Obviously you were confused -as always- about these genetic markers, which is why you made a delirious conclusion, based on your confusion of Mtdna and Y-dna. I hope you'll understand one day....

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.


Coconuts. Stop trying to steal the heritage of the First African Americans.
 

---

Posted by Egmond Codfried (Member # 15683) on :
 


I'm not making light of this thread, but I have to say that by doing LOOKALIKES, these old artifacts and works of art speak louder to me. Do you notice the ridge above the Willendorff Beauty's breast? Now from the side I can see they are her arms. She doesn't show nipples, but lower 'lip reading' is possible. Why?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Venus Figurines



The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.

---

. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

[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.

[Marc writes] Dr. Winters, I don’t agree with all your points but think you’ve made many excellent points and feel your "forensic" evidence is outstanding.



.
.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

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.



.

---

Clyde, you still aren't making sense. The picture you posted is from a model of a skull in South America. It supports research that says the original native Americans came from AUSTRALIA among populations like Aborigines. It does not support what you are talking about. Australian aborigines along with the aborigines of ALL of Asia are black. Some have straight hair (Australia) and others look more like Africans (New Guinea). New Guinea and Australia are considered places with the OLDEST populations in Asia, outside South Asia. ALL of these people are black and ALL of them have features that are very much similar to Africans. Therefore, why on earth would Australian and African features found in the first Americans be a sign of DIRECT African migration, when THE SAME Australian/African features are found in the FIRST ASIAN populations as well. Why the disconnect Clyde? There is no distinction between these Australian/African features and the features of the FIRST people in Asia, because they are very much the same.

NONE of these people are MELANESIANS Clyde. So melanesian features have nothing to do with it.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.






.
.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[qb] [QUOTE]The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.

---

^ Interesting as it implies you admit they are descendant of the aboriginal populations of Europe.... but.... no, we already know you claim the original European population was... African.

So, again, the ethnocentrism that drives your ideology, also cripples it, and renders it incoherent, and self defeating.

---

quote:

---

The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Indeed. Racialists run afowl of reality because they are glued to a fixed ideology.

But research and new facts are never ending, and long ago moved the the 'rug' out from under their feet.

They refer to those who keep up with current data as living in a 'dream', because they are more comfortable living in the past, where they can be safe from 'evil' genetics and all those terrible new findings that suggest things they don't like.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

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.



.

---

Clyde, you still aren't making sense. The picture you posted is from a model of a skull in South America. It supports research that says the original native Americans came from AUSTRALIA among populations like Aborigines. It does not support what you are talking about. Australian aborigines along with the aborigines of ALL of Asia are black. Some have straight hair (Australia) and others look more like Africans (New Guinea). New Guinea and Australia are considered places with the OLDEST populations in Asia, outside South Asia. ALL of these people are black and ALL of them have features that are very much similar to Africans. Therefore, why on earth would Australian and African features found in the first Americans be a sign of DIRECT African migration, when THE SAME Australian/African features are found in the FIRST ASIAN populations as well. Why the disconnect Clyde? There is no distinction between these Australian/African features and the features of the FIRST people in Asia, because they are very much the same.

NONE of these people are MELANESIANS Clyde. So melanesian features have nothing to do with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

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.



.

---

Clyde, you still aren't making sense. The picture you posted is from a model of a skull in South America. It supports research that says the original native Americans came from AUSTRALIA among populations like Aborigines. It does not support what you are talking about. Australian aborigines along with the aborigines of ALL of Asia are black. Some have straight hair (Australia) and others look more like Africans (New Guinea). New Guinea and Australia are considered places with the OLDEST populations in Asia, outside South Asia. ALL of these people are black and ALL of them have features that are very much similar to Africans. Therefore, why on earth would Australian and African features found in the first Americans be a sign of DIRECT African migration, when THE SAME Australian/African features are found in the FIRST ASIAN populations as well. Why the disconnect Clyde? There is no distinction between these Australian/African features and the features of the FIRST people in Asia, because they are very much the same.

NONE of these people are MELANESIANS Clyde. So melanesian features have nothing to do with it.

---

There you go showing your stupidity again. We were discussing the San and Australians--not Melanesians.



You attempt to make it appear that anthropologists claim the earliest skeletal remains found in the Americas such as Luzia are definitely Australian. This is not true Neves made it clear that the anatomy of her skull and teeth - including a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin - likens Luzia to Africans and Australasians.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Indeed. Racialists run afowl of reality because they are glued to a fixed ideology.

But research and new facts are never ending, and long ago moved the the 'rug' out from under their feet.

They refer to those who keep up with current data as living in a 'dream', because they are more comfortable living in the past, where they can be safe from 'evil' genetics and all those terrible new findings that suggest things they don't like.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

^ Name the current anthropologist who relates the above garbage.

Melanoid means 'black'. There is no such thing in anthropology as a 'melanoid' 'race' of certain blacks:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/melanoid

You just make up terms to make your dumb ideas sound [to you], less dumb.

And let me save you time, in terms of your usual big bags of wind repponses that address nothing:

I only asked for the name of a current anthropoloigst who supports your rubbish.

Don't make us wait, faker.

Names please....

No?

Then your claim is a lie.

---

quote:

---

Melanoid-- Of or related to melanin; black-pigmented. 2. Of or affected with melanosis; melanin is a dark brown coloring found in the body, especially in the skin and hair. Produced by special skin cells that are sensitive to sunlight, melanin protects the body by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Does NOT refer to a certain race of people!!

Australoid --Anthropology. a descriptive category including principally the Australian Aborigines and sometimes including Papuans, Melanesians, various small-statured peoples, as Negritos, of the Philippines, Malay Peninsula, and Andaman Islands, and some of the tribes of central and southern India. OR Of or being a human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as dark skin and dark curly hair, and including the Aboriginal peoples of Australia along with various peoples of southeast Asia, especially Melanesia and the Malay Archipelago.

---

quote:

---

Re: Indigenous in Asia and Australia
Posted by: Yulu-burri-ba (IP Logged)
Date: November 10, 2004 01:30AM

when i used the term Negrito i should have used Melanoid. i didnt realise that negrito refered to pygmy people only. I meant that between here [Australia] and India was the land of Melanesian people not neccessarily pygmy people.

i reckon the Pygmy people have just adapted to jungle areas and the Pygmy people of Atherton tableland would have either evolved that way or possibly migrated from the jungles that would have linked Northern Australia to south east asia in their pygmy form. I guess most of the Melanesian people of southesat asia are Pygmy because it is almost all jungle.

so then did the saltwater Melanesian people who are usually quite big evolve from the jungle Pygmies or did the jungle Pygmies evolve from the strong, tall saltwater people?

Thomas Welsby was a white man who lived on Stradbroke Island in the early days of white incursion on Nunukul lands and he states in his writings that the average native man of Stradbroke Island was over 6 foot and the average white man of the time was under 6 foot. He said that no white man would be any match in any form of mortal combat, other than that of the gun, with any Stradbroke Islander.

I have now met at least ten Jupukai people [from Kuranda's jungle or rainforests] who have moved to Stradbroke Island and 90% of the women i have met from Kuranda have been very short. I haven't met many Jupukai men as the family that moved into our neighbourhood comprised only of duaghters [and one son who has a saltwater father from Stradbroke island who is quite tall]. Obviously the jungle people and the saltwater people are very different in appearance but i believe both are Melanesian and of the same 'sub group'.

sometimes i wonder if there is any point in talking about racial differences because of the piont i raised via an elder about 'race' as a new topic but i think that from a historical perspective these discusions about the origins of various 'races' are extremely important.

i reckon all the anthropologists out there should be very carefull about using the term 'Race' as if it distinguishes people, when the only thing that separates say Europeans from Africans or Melanesians is that they have developed different environmental adaptations. To me there is no such thing as race however for this discussion board i will engage in the 'race' notion to save confusion.


http://www.ausanthrop.net/phorum/read.php?1,723

---

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Rasol. An astute man of honor and integrity.




.
.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

Use of term: Melanoid


Melanoid-- Of or related to melanin; black-pigmented. 2. Of or affected with melanosis; melanin is a dark brown coloring found in the body, especially in the skin and hair. Produced by special skin cells that are sensitive to sunlight, melanin protects the body by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun.

---

quote:

---

Does NOT refer to a certain race of people!!

---

quote:

---

rasol wrote:
You just make up terms to make your dumb ideas sound [to you], less dumb.

And let me save you time, in terms of your usual big bags of wind repponses that address nothing:

I only asked for the name of a current anthropoloigst who supports your rubbish.

Don't make us wait, faker.

Names please....

No?

Then your claim is a lie.

---

quote:

---

Winters responds to Doug: You attempt to make it appear that anthropologists claim the earliest skeletal remains found in the Americas such as Luzia are definitely Australian.

---

^ Actually the point that Neves is making is that the original populations of America look like Aboriginal populations of Southern Asia and Australia.

It's possible that they migrated up the coast of East Asia and down the coast of North America.

It's also possible that the made it by Sea from Oceania to South America.

Either way, it doesn't make them African, any more than Swedes or Chinese would be African.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

.
.

[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.[/b]


[Marc writes] Utterly broken logic? Yeah. Right.







.
.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

This is not true Neves made it clear that the anatomy of her skull and teeth - including a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin - likens Luzia to Africans and Australasians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
They are Americans. They are both Black and Indian, because Indian is the name Europeans gave to the natives of America. They were probably descendants of the first Black who settled America 30kya

---

Therefore, they aren't native Americans, but Africans, now you are using european concepts because they suit you, isn't it?

---

It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas...
So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,

So in other words... If it's not proper anymore to state that the indigenous were white, then why should we call them Black?... Is that your arguement?...,

Remember...
You supposed geniuses were calling the people Amerindians....,

First off, America got it's name from Amerigo Vaspucci..., Is that not right?...
So how in the hell can you argue the name Amerasian to began with.... Your premise in reality is lost from there!...

And while we are at the subject that you brought up.. I am one of those who believe STRONGELY that a black rise is coming...,

Obama is just the beginning....,
Forget about what lineage he percieves....,
IMAGE is everything especially to a RACIST!...
If Obama was in Algeria...

YOU WOULD BE CALLING HIM AN ARAB!....,
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.


[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.


[Marc writes] You are talking about someone’s logic when you stuggle even to spell properly?



http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-17-00-28.html




.
.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas...
So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,

---

^ All human beings originate in Africa.

This means humans as a species are African.

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.

This is not a 'species' distinction, but only an ethnic one, defined in terms of geography.

These people are Natives of the above regions and by definition are therefore not Africans.


If you insist on calling Native Americans - Africans - then - by the same warped logic - you would have to call Europeans - Germans, Swedes, all of them... African too.

Winters knows this, he just specialises in targeting foolish people like Marc Washington with his distorted racist pseudo-theories.

I'm sorry, but Winters is a charleton.

This is why when asked for a single name of a scholar who supports his nonsense, he can't provide...even one.

Be his fool if you want....your choice.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.


[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.


[Marc writes] You are talking about serious scholarship? Give me a break.



http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-17-00-20.html




.
.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas...
So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,

---

^ All human beings originate in Africa.

This means humans as a species are African.

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.

This is not a 'species' distinction, but only an ethnic one, defined in terms of geography.

These people are Natives of the above regions and by definition are therefore not Africans.


If you insist on calling Native Americans - Africans - then - by the same warped logic - you would have to call Europeans - Germans, Swedes, all of them... African too.

Winters knows this, he just specialises in targeting foolish people like Marc Washington with his distorted racist pseudo-theories.

I'm sorry, but Winters is a charleton.

This is why when asked for a single name of a scholar who supports his nonsense, he can't provide...even one.

Be his fool if you want....your choice.

---

Oceania: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Native Peoples of Australia ... - Page 69
by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, Raymond William Firth, Adolphus Peter Elkin, University of Sydney, Australian National Research Council -
"Both Australoids and " Melanoids " are distinguished by their dark skin, the
difference being that the former have wavy hair, while that of the latter is ..."(p.69)




The Ethnic Studies Story: Politics and Social Movements in Hawaiʻi : Essays ... - Page 117
by Ibrahim G. Aoudé, Marion Kelly, University of Hawaii at Manoa Dept. of Sociology - Social Science - 1999 - 315 pages
"... while blacks (or as they put it "Melanoids") and other darker skinned peoples
excel in such areas as "humor, music, art, ability to live a communal life ..."(p.315)


http://books.google.com/books?id=nn7Ij3xfXo0C&pg=PA117&dq=Melanoids&lr=


.
 

---

Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
Melanoids?
OK, I see.
The paper is reviewing European racist theory where the classic authoring bigot suggests non-melanoids lack melanin, or possess insufficient levels to be of any significance and this somehow led them to reach higher evolutionary gains then those peoples with melanin?

Interesting that this author is basing his theory on Whites "evolving" to lose all melanin.
Sounds much like the recent paper Rasol and KIK posted, although this earlier paper seems to have come out of Nazi Germany. Also, at that point in time, the value of possessing melanin was still unclear and extremely underestimated.

To your point, the author does make it clear he categorizes all MELANINATED people as the same.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.




.
.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Oceania: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Native Peoples of Australia ... - Page 69
by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, Raymond William Firth, Adolphus Peter Elkin, University of Sydney, Australian National Research Council -
"Both Australoids and " Melanoids " are distinguished by their dark skin, the
difference being that the former have wavy hair, while that of the latter is ..."(p.69)

---

quote:

---

Member
Member # 12654

Rate Member posted 28 October, 2008 12:39 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanoids?
OK, I see.
The paper is reviewing European racist theory where the classic authoring bigot suggests non-melanoids lack melanin, or possess insufficient levels to be of any significance and this somehow led them to reach higher evolutionary gains then those peoples with melanin?

---

^ This is exactly what Winters source is saying.
 

---

Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
To be honest, this guy does look pretty futuristic.

 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.


[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.


[Marc writes] You are talking about confusing discourse (well, you spelled the words correctly) and gloss over the multitudinous conundrums sprouting from your own convoluted mind? What a joke.



http://www.beforebc.de/Made.by.Humankind/Real.People/02-17-00-10.html




.
.
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^Is Marc 40, or 14? Certainly post as if he is the latter.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

Dr. Winters. Great observations and comments you've made. Great pictures. I have a comment.

Your citation follows:

"Oceania: A Journal Devoted to the Study of the Native Peoples of Australia ... - Page 69
by Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown, Raymond William Firth, Adolphus Peter Elkin, University of Sydney, Australian National Research Council -
"Both Australoids and " Melanoids " are distinguished by their dark skin, the
difference being that the former have wavy hair, while that of the latter is ..."(p.69)."

Reading the annals of Captain Cook and even those of the historical Mutiny on the Bounty, both record great floods of white men unloading their genes into the indigenous women of Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific. This would, I believe, account for the straight hair of the Australoids.

I believe it was from the direction of New Guinea that Australia was populated and in New Guinea, the hair is more often than not woolly. But, New Guinea had less white influx than did Australia and New Zealand.

It would seem that the lesser influx of whites into New Guinea would result in the hair remaining woolly as their forebears in Africa; and that their descendents would have straight hair as the original woolly-haired population experienced so much gene-flow from the horny guys from Europe.

This would seem to account, too, for ancient accounts of the African and Indian races being the same save the African had woolly hair and the Indian more straight. But, it was in India during the time of the closing days of Mohen-jo Daro that (I believe) Aryans from the Steppes poured like a mighty flood into India mixing white genes with original African ones - the result being initially African woolly hair turning straight.

I don't know what all the fuss is about who is white, who is Asian, and who is what is.

Tony Blair and Arnold Schwarzenegger are ___.

Connie Chang of NBC and Bruce Lee are ___.

Nelson Mandela and Wesley Snipes are ___.

Everyone would give, respectively, the answers white, Mongul / Asian, black / African.

These being the three main races and those of Southeast Asia and North America being mixtures of the main races - so sub-races.

I don't know what all the fuss is about with people trying to say Africans aren't Africans. Tony Blair isn't and nor is Connie Chang. Africans have full features as the people of Australia, Africa, and much of New Guinea do. Geographically they are not all African but if we define African by phenotype, they are all African.

I don't know why people are running around having babies trying to say that Melanesians aren't African.

I've enjoyed the rigor of your analysis in this thread. I look forward to learning more.

Kind thanks,


Marc

.
.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.

And, Key, what's your IQ?



.
.
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.

.

[On 10/12, Pmideast wrote] what I am getting from this thread is …
[On 10/12, Key replied] Apparently to the ignorant jackasses on this thread, yes this would be true.
[On 10/28, Key asked] Is Marc 40, or 14? Certainly post as if he is the latter.

[That is why above and here my question …] And what is your IQ?



.
.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas...
So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,

---

^ All human beings originate in Africa.

This means humans as a species are African.

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.

This is not a 'species' distinction, but only an ethnic one, defined in terms of geography.

These people are Natives of the above regions and by definition are therefore not Africans.


If you insist on calling Native Americans - Africans - then - by the same warped logic - you would have to call Europeans - Germans, Swedes, all of them... African too.

Winters knows this, he just specialises in targeting foolish people like Marc Washington with his distorted racist pseudo-theories.

I'm sorry, but Winters is a charleton.

This is why when asked for a single name of a scholar who supports his nonsense, he can't provide...even one.

Be his fool if you want....your choice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

The white Americans come from Europe so we call them Europeans.

---

^ Interesting as it implies you admit they are descendant of the aboriginal populations of Europe.... but.... no, we already know you claim the original European population was... African.

So, again, the ethnocentrism that drives your ideology, also cripples it, and renders it incoherent, and self defeating.

---

The Venus Figures represent the first Europeans. They are representative of the San people and are therefore Africans.

This is a bushman or San.




Hottentot




As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.

Venus Figurines



The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.

---

. [/QB][/QUOTE]


^^^Lmao, I just noticed the pics of the females pictured with Steatopygea, are actually Andaman Islanders, and are not Khoisan. Clyde That wasn't very smart.

Clyde, Steatopygea as you can see, is also found amongst the Andamans, Southeast Asians. See Clyde you propose all of this, but fail to realize original OOA populations represented by Australo-Melanesians, Andaman Islanders, New Guinea etc... Do not possess post OOA African lineages, in concordance with your theories. These groups carry pristine OOA non-African lineages Clyde.





Note above the genetic distance between Africans and populations carrying pristine OOA lineages, Oceanic populations.

I've already posted anthropological evidence which puts European UP humans, most closely resembling Oceanic's, and being quite distinct from Khoisan. Yet you don't address the anthropology, nor do you stop your nonsense of Africans migrating directly from Africa into Europe, which did not happen, Clyde.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This is a bushman or San.




Hottentot



Venus Figurines



.

---

quote:

---

You attempt to make it appear that anthropologists claim the earliest skeletal remains found in the Americas such as Luzia are definitely Australian. This is not true Neves made it clear that the anatomy of her skull and teeth - including a narrow, oval cranium, projecting face and pronounced chin - likens Luzia to Africans and Australasians.

---

quote:

---

The oldest Americans' Negroid traits are not very specialized, making a direct immigration from Africa or Australia unlikely. Therefore, **Neves**(the head proponent for Australia/African like populations reaching America) believes that the America's more than 12,000 years ago did not necessarily occur by sea: "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. A genetic comparison might solve the mystery...

''We know that today's Amerindians have ***four main groups***,'' said Dr. Pena, who found a genetic marker common to 17 different widely dispersed Indian groups across the Americans in the course of an earlier project. ''What would constitute molecular proof of ***Walter's (NEVES)*** hypothesis is to find ***DNA sequences COMPLETELY **different** from those ***four groups***.''

Dr. Meltzer said: ''This is clearly the way to resolve the issue. The skull is intriguing morphological evidence, but in order to really nail down this issue of affinity, you need evidence, and ***DNA*** is the way to go.''

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
[qb] [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).
Clyde you do understand that you didn't address the above, or discuss your claim of A2 and B2 being African in origin, carried by Khoisan and Pygmies respectively. Obviously you were confused -as always- about these genetic markers, which is why you made a delirious conclusion, based on your confusion of Mtdna and Y-dna. I hope you'll understand one day....

---

I understand this perfectly. You are the one who pretends to be blind to the facts.

---

Nope, not an answer to your claim of A2 and B2 being African in origin, carried by Khoisan and Pygmies respectively. Obviously you were confused -as always- about these genetic markers, which is why you made a delirious conclusion, based on your confusion of Mtdna and Y-dna. I hope you'll understand one day....
 

---

Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
 
.
.


Science shows proto-San as Europe’s earliest population and the East African population that travelled to Southeast Asia and Australia

Our ancestors (the australopithecines @ 3.4 mya), diverged from the chimpanzee but, the prehuman males remained close to the chimpanzee in one unique respect. The male chimpanzee has A (adenosine) at the M42 site.[a] Of 900 men tested worldwide, the only men who have A (adenosine) at the M42 site as chimpanzees do were 15% of the Khoisan and some few others.

Proto-san as Europe’s early population Science writes (see left page below map) that Europe’s early population was these toolmaking Australopithcines and the ancestors of these people from 90,000 years ago started migrating to Australia where they reached it by 60,000 years ago.

[a] Peter Underhill, et. al., Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations, Nature Genetics, 26, issue of 26 November 2000; (2) Ann Gibbons, Y chromosome shows that Adam was an African, Science, 278:5339, pp. 804 – 805, Issue of 31 Oct 1997.




http://www.beforebc.de/all_africa/04-10a-00-02.html
 

---

Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^Lol Marc, you make some of the most outrageous claims, your boy Clyde wouldn't even agree with you on.


As Clyde admits populations reached Australia, Southeast Asia and Oceanic islands alike. As there is also no evidence of modern humans in Europe until 40-45kya. When modern humans were to reach Europe, they still resembled these above mentioned populations, who are very well representative of OOA populations.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marc Washington:
.
.


Science shows proto-San as Europe’s earliest population and the East African population that travelled to Southeast Asia and Australia

Our ancestors (the australopithecines @ 3.4 mya), diverged from the chimpanzee but, the prehuman males remained close to the chimpanzee in one unique respect. The male chimpanzee has A (adenosine) at the M42 site.[a] Of 900 men tested worldwide, the only men who have A (adenosine) at the M42 site as chimpanzees do were 15% of the Khoisan and some few others.

Proto-san as Europe’s early population Science writes (see left page below map) that Europe’s early population was these toolmaking Australopithcines and the ancestors of these people from 90,000 years ago started migrating to Australia where they reached it by 60,000 years ago.

[a] Peter Underhill, et. al., Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations, Nature Genetics, 26, issue of 26 November 2000; (2) Ann Gibbons, Y chromosome shows that Adam was an African, Science, 278:5339, pp. 804 – 805, Issue of 31 Oct 1997.




http://www.beforebc.de/all_africa/04-10a-00-02.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It is very plausible that the Africans did settle in the so called Americas...
So what would be the problem to say that they were Africans?... If Mr. Winters was suggesting that it should be called AFRICA, then you would have a point... But you willing and ready to state CLEARLY ASIA aren't you?....,

---

^ All human beings originate in Africa.

This means humans as a species are African.

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.

This is not a 'species' distinction, but only an ethnic one, defined in terms of geography.

These people are Natives of the above regions and by definition are therefore not Africans.


If you insist on calling Native Americans - Africans - then - by the same warped logic - you would have to call Europeans - Germans, Swedes, all of them... African too.

Winters knows this, he just specialises in targeting foolish people like Marc Washington with his distorted racist pseudo-theories.

I'm sorry, but Winters is a charleton.

This is why when asked for a single name of a scholar who supports his nonsense, he can't provide...even one.

Be his fool if you want....your choice.

---