When we examine the true nature of the myth of the non-African origins of Egypt, the primary basis for such research and misconception is due to the diversity of Africa. Europeans were not prepared for the vast cultural and physical differences found amongst African people. But are Africans the only people like this? Are there other populations that have highly sophisticated civilizations in one region combined with qualitatively primitive societies as well?
The typical reason why people have a hard time with a Black African Egypt is due to the dominant culture of the Bantu people from whence most African Americans are descended from.
However, note the title of this thread - Samoans, Chinese and the myth of the Non-African origins of Egypt.
What do Samoans and Chinese have to do with Egypt? Simple really! In some racial classification systems, Samoans and Chinese are classified as separate racial groups. This is incorrect. The Samoans are tropically adapted Chinese people and not related to Australian people, Negritoes, etc. They are indeed orientals.
So why mention the Samoans! Quite simple again.
No European person ever said that the Chinese didn't build the Great Wall of China because of how primitive the Samoans are. And yet so many of them dismiss a Black African origin of Egypt based on the misconceived idea of the primitiveness of the Bantu Africans. They also ignore the connection between the East African people and the rest of Africa precisely because of the cultural differences that really are not as acute as commonly taught.
Again - Samoans are to Chinese what Bantu are to the Egyptians. Modern day Egyptians are the descendants of the ancients - period. But lets look at this from the point of view of other societies that have been colonized - Mexico. Again, do you say that the Mexicans could not have built the great Sun pyramid because the Comanche Indians never had a sophisticated society or even a writing system? No! Yet we know Aztec and Comanche have a common ancestor. And just because there are Blonde Blue Eye Mexican models, actors, etc, do we say that Aztecs must have been white? Absolutely not!
So why are people so confused with Egypt? Its simple: slavery. The cover up of African history was done to help promote slavery. Slavery was a huge moral issue in America and it took a great deal of effort to maintain it against the objections of so many. An entire science was created just to keep people accepting a very profitable business system. History was completely re-written.
You don't believe me?
There are so many simple examples of Blacks being written out of history precisely because of the slave trade. One of the simpler examples of that for anyone to see is the Black St. Maurice.
Here is St. Maurice before the Atlantic slave trade started to become a significant form of business:
Here is St. Maurice after the start of the Atlantic slave trade:
The same is true with the Egyptians. You want to have an example? Actually I just gave you one. St. Maurice was an Egyptian. The Europeans depicted this Egyptian St. as clearly a Black African before the slave trade and then he was conveniently turned to a White person after its start. The cult of race had started and the re-writing of history had begun - it was a religious affair. Blacks were associated with the Devil and Islam due to the Moors. History began to be white washed for a new gold/goal - Black gold.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Osirion
quote:
The typical reason why people have a hard time with a Black African Egypt is due to the dominant culture of the Bantu people from whence most African Americans are descended from.
This is false. Very few AAs are of Bantu origin.Most AAs are of Senegambian origin.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Osirion
quote:
What do Samoans and Chinese have to do with Egypt? Simple really! In some racial classification systems, Samoans and Chinese are classified as separate racial groups. This is incorrect. The Samoans are tropically adapted Chinese people and not related to Australian people, Negritoes, etc. They are indeed orientals.
Samoans
Chinese
The Samoans are not tropically adapted Chinese. They are a separate racial group.
Please present the anthropological, linguistic and genetic evidence supporting your claim.
Some Chinese did marry Samoans and had children but the New Zealanders outlawed the practice. here
Samoan Chinese Children
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people.
Concepts of race are ignored by me.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: As for Samoans related to the Chinese?
Genetically Europeans are related to Africans--but this does not make Europeans=Africans.
The article you post is contradictory. It fails to present abundance of evidence proving that the Samoans and Chinese are related. The people compared in this study are primarially of non-Chinese (Hua/Han) origin.
.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
Actually Ghana is the most common source.
Still Bantu people.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
The people of the Pacific are related to aboriginal populations of Asia that existed thousands of years ago, all of whom were most likely tropically adapted. The populations in the Pacific retained these features by continuing to live in a tropical environment. This includes New Guinea, Fiji and on into Samoa, Hawaii and New Zealand. Similar features can be found on aboriginal populations from South Asia into the Americas. They are all related, but of course due to the fact that many islands were almost depopulated over the last 500 years, some of the genetic research has to be taken with a grain of salt as many of the modern populations are thoroughly mixed with non pacific blood.
But yes many pacific Islanders have retained their tropical features that were once found also on the mainland before populations moved North and/or Northern populations moved South.
Posted by Morpheus (Member # 16203) on :
Here's some useful information on Myra's webpage:
quote:This information comes from Philip D. Curtin's book, The Atlantic Slave Trade, (1969), p. 221. Obviously, this is not the only version available, but Curtin is a heavyweight on the subject (along with W.E.B. DuBois, R.R. Kuczynski, E. Donnan, Davies, H.S. Klein, etc.) and I like the way the data is presented:
PROJECTED EXPORTS OF THAT PORTION OF THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE HAVING IDENTIFIABLE REGION OF COAST ORIGIN IN AFRICA, 1711-1810.
Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia) * 5.8% Sierra Leone 3.4% Windward Coast (Ivory Coast) * 12.1% Gold Coast (Ghana) * 14.4% Bight of Benin (Nigeria) * 14.5 Bight of Biafra (Nigeria) * 25.1% Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon- N. Angola) * 24.7%
* The countries in parentheses are rough approximations to help you find the location on a modern map.
Now I will try to relate the above regions to selected ethnic groups. I've collected this data from a variety of sources, and I can't vouch for all of them. The central question for me is always, "Were these people called by that name during that time in that place?" I don't know how to show the nomadic and semi-nomadic groups, but I included several below anyway.
African-Americans are partially but not primarily descended from Bantu people.
As far as the Somaons are concerned they have traditionally been grouped as Mongoloids but are sometimes placed in a separate Polynesian racial category. Culturally and genetically they are much more similar to other Polynesian peoples than they are to mainland East Asians.
They do reside in the tropics but they have not lived there are long as Australian Aborigines and Melanasians who show more significant tropical adaptations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The original Samoans were not mongoloids. They were closely related to people from Fiji and elsewhere in the pacific who were tropically adapted people. These people no longer exist in the same exact form as 500 years ago. Therefore any claims of mainland Asian Mongoloid ancestry are more likely due to the mixed heritage of many Islands more than anything else. And the number one reason is because ancient South Asians and Pacific Islanders were not descended from Mongolians.
Even lighter skinned people from these islands are NOT Mongoloid:
Just because some have epicanthic eyefolds doesn't mean they came from Mongolia. However, some do have recent Asian ancestry from China and Japan (along with Europe) while others are simply a remnant of more ancient populations who never set foot on the main land.
They all descend from Aborigines of Asia: Or more accurately they descend from populations who who migrated to Asia and Australia 60,000+ years ago.
Note Nauru and other pacific Isles are closer to Japan and China and have even more tropically adapted populations who are part of the ancient biodiversity of Asia.
After all Japan is a big island in the pacific that at one time probably had more people like the Ainu and various flavors of South Asian, Pacific and aboriginal Asian peoples anyway along with the mainland northern asian types.
These are taken from Americans sent to "investigate Samoan Affairs" or investigate how to take over Samoa for the Americans.
quote:The George Handy Bates Samoan Papers, 1869-1916, contain correspondence, documents, memoranda, clippings, photographs, and other material relating to George Handy Bates' tenure as a special investigator into Samoan affairs beginning in 1886, and as a commissioner to the 1889 Berlin Conference on Samoan Affairs. The papers are valuable for studying the culture and history of Samoa, particularly during the 1880s. Consult the online finding aid for more information about this collection.
This is just a list of where the slaves came from. This list tells us nothing about the importation of slaves to the USA.
I don't really accept much of the data in this text. Curtin believes that only 10 million Africans were imported into the Americas. WEB DuBois who travelled to many of the major business interest involved in the Slave Trade found that an estimated 100 million Africans were taken to the Americas, with a large number of these people being drowned during the Middle Passage or dying in other fashions.
Curtin's book was written to deminish the impact of the Atlantic Slave trade which depopulated many parts of Africa and led to the decline in African civilization which allowed Europeans to rule Africa for almost 100 years.
Although most African countries did not fall under the control of European Nations until 1890's and many African countries gained "independence" by the 1960's, people have this myth that Africans have always been ruled by Europeans.
Amazingly, after only ruling Africa for a little more than 70 years Europeans were able to brainwash these people into losing their history--by providing them leaders who lacked self-esteem and confidence fostered by being educated in European metropolis where they developed an inferiority complex.
European domination of the history curriculum through non-European people accepting higher education statndards created by Europeans have made these people lose their history as they parrot whatever dogma taught them by Europeans.
The Japanese did not have this problem until after World War II. They failed to fall under the power of Europe before they lost the war because eventhough Japanese were educated in the West, the government had a policy of bringing these people back to Japan to teach other Japanese who became the leaders of industry and science. They made sure that their population did not admire Japanese educated in foriegn countries to minimize the influence of the West on Japan.
Africans during colonialism did not have this right . Future African leaders were nurtured in Europe. These leaders returned home, and even if they were militant, favored a culture and history taught them by their masters.
Sad. Sad indeed
This is why it took the Afro-American scholars to spearhead new researches that recovered our history. It was Carter G. Woodson and WEB DuBois who popularized study of an ancient Black Egypt and the West African kingdoms. AAs could do this because some of them were able to have confidence in themselves and self-esteem eventhough they attended Europeans/American schools.
Thank god of these scholars. Without them we would be lost.
.
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Here's some useful information on Myra's webpage:
quote:This information comes from Philip D. Curtin's book, The Atlantic Slave Trade, (1969), p. 221. Obviously, this is not the only version available, but Curtin is a heavyweight on the subject (along with W.E.B. DuBois, R.R. Kuczynski, E. Donnan, Davies, H.S. Klein, etc.) and I like the way the data is presented:
PROJECTED EXPORTS OF THAT PORTION OF THE FRENCH AND ENGLISH SLAVE TRADE HAVING IDENTIFIABLE REGION OF COAST ORIGIN IN AFRICA, 1711-1810.
Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia) * 5.8% Sierra Leone 3.4% Windward Coast (Ivory Coast) * 12.1% Gold Coast (Ghana) * 14.4% Bight of Benin (Nigeria) * 14.5 Bight of Biafra (Nigeria) * 25.1% Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon- N. Angola) * 24.7%
* The countries in parentheses are rough approximations to help you find the location on a modern map.
Now I will try to relate the above regions to selected ethnic groups. I've collected this data from a variety of sources, and I can't vouch for all of them. The central question for me is always, "Were these people called by that name during that time in that place?" I don't know how to show the nomadic and semi-nomadic groups, but I included several below anyway.
African-Americans are partially but not primarily descended from Bantu people.
As far as the Somaons are concerned they have traditionally been grouped as Mongoloids but are sometimes placed in a separate Polynesian racial category. Culturally and genetically they are much more similar to other Polynesian peoples than they are to mainland East Asians.
They do reside in the tropics but they have not lived there are long as Australian Aborigines and Melanasians who show more significant tropical adaptations.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Many of these recent genetic studies are bogus in trying to disconnect the original people of the Eastern Pacific from the Western "melanesian" islands. Not only are the people in the early photos from these Islands not "mongoloid" but they are closest in physical features to people from New Guinea, Fiji and other places in Melanesia. Hence, it is obvious they cannot be a "separate" population.
quote: Archeologists place the earliest human settlement of the Samoan archipelago around 1500 B.C. This time period is based upon the ancient lapita pottery shards found throughout the islands. Samoa's oral history, however, can only account for as far back as 1000 A.D. The mystery remains as to what happened from 1500 B.C. to 1000 A.D. Perhaps, this was the period of great migrations that eventually led to the settlement of what is today, Polynesia. Another mystery is why the making of pottery suddenly stopped. There is no oral tradition in reference to pottery use, but it abounds with proverbs on the starmounts used for the ancient sport of pigeon snarling, once popular among Samoa's nobility. Linguistically, the Samoan language is part of the Austronesian language family. Historically, Samoa is recognized as the center of Polynesia from whence migrations to the Marquesas in the east and south to Niue and the Pukapuka islands of Rarotonga; and north to the Tokelau and Tuvalu island groups. In all these islands, oral tradition accounts of their ancestors coming from the Samoan islands. These migrations by alia reflect the extraordinary courage these seafaring people had and in navigating with the instruments to sail throughout the vast Pacific Ocean.
Prior to the arrival of the Europeans in the early 1700s, Samoa's history was interwoven with chiefdoms of Fiji and the kingdom of Tonga. Samoa share common ancestor of Tagaloa; as well as historical battles fought between the island rulers. It should also be noted that the inter-marriage of Tongan and Fijian royalty to Samoan women of noble status have helped build close relationships between these island nations to present day. To this day, these blood ties are acknowledged at special events and cultural gatherings. Samoan folklore captures the arrival of two maidens from Fiji that brought the art of tatau, or tattoo to Samoa. Oral traditions record the use of the Samoan fine mat as a garment of atonement, draped over a Samoan maiden to pardon her from a Tongan king's wrath and criminal indictment. The bestowal of the highly reverent title, Malietoa, marked a historical period in Samoan history when the islands were officially recognized to be independent from the realms of Tongan rule. The title, refers to the parting words of Tongan warriors: Malie toa, malie tau; literally translated: "Brave warrior, bravely fought." Hence, the title was amended as part of the more ancient royal courts and titles of Tui-Aana, Tui-Atua. These tales are reflective of the ambiance of Samoa's colorful, and at times, fierce past.
This is what people mean when they talk about "mongoloid" polynesians:
Cook Islands
Hawaii:
But that does not make them typical of what the Eastern Pacific people looked like 500 years ago. However, they are still the natives and about as close as you are going to get to those original populations.
And as far as the war dance goes, it was the women who taught the children both male and female these traditional forms.
The queens and females were as fierce as the males in many cases.
But just to show how much spite they have for black folks they come up with the "fast boat" theory of how mainland Northern Chinese sailors zipped past Melanesia and other "black islands" to get to polynesia without even having to stop and take a wee or pick up more pigs or food and stopped in the Eastern Pacific totally unlike the other people in the Western Islands.
RIGHT!
quote: On the basis of archaeological, linguistic and now genetic information, the ancestors of the Polynesians were probably from East Asia, most likely Taiwan. “Probably 5,000 years ago, people started spreading out of Taiwan down through the Philippines, through Indonesia, along the coast of New Guinea and then on out to Polynesia,” Stoneking explained. Polynesian mitochondrial DNA contains mutations that can be traced from Indonesia to Taiwan. However, as with the Lasithi Plateau, the mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome DNA each tell a different story (Kayser et al, 2006). “In general, when we do this work in other parts of the world, we see a reasonably good correlation between what the Y-DNA and the mitochondrial DNA tells us about the population origins in history,” Stoneking said. However, “[t]he majority of Y-chromosomes [in Polynesians] came from New Guinea. You don't see them anywhere else in the world. It was surprising to us that you would have such a large discrepancy between the mitochondrial DNA and the Y-chromosome evidence of this population of Polynesians.” The researchers therefore looked at autosomal markers, which can shed light on the blend of human origins. Their most recent paper, scheduled for publication in the American Journal of Human Genetics, reports that 80% of the genes in Polynesians come from Asia and 20% from New Guinea. “It's a bit unusual, but it fits with some other evidence,” Stoneking said. Some anthropologists subscribe to a ‘fast train' theory in which the ancestral Polynesians sped through New Guinea. But the genetic research, combined with research from archaeology and linguistics, is now suggesting what Stoneking calls, “a slow-boat model,” in which the ancestors lingered, admixed and spent some time with the local New Guinean populations. “They did so in what would appear to be a rather peculiar fashion. Normally, when you have this new population moving in and admixture going on, usually what you have are males from the incoming population mating and having access to females from the resident population, but not the other way around. Here it would appear to be the other way around,” he said. The Polynesians appear to have started out from East Asia about 5,000 years ago, spreading along the coast of New Guinea, where extensive intermixing occurred with preferential mating with males from the local group.
Of course what this absurd tale doesn't say is that most of the people who hit the Eastern Pacific were primarily people with features like people from New Guinea, Melanesia and Fiji. And this is not to mention that much of the cultural traits came from there as well. It also does not mention that 5000 years ago that most of these people probably looked more like South Asian aboriginal types as opposed to modern North Asians. And lastly it doesn't take into account the fact that many modern Eastern Pacific populations are heavily mixed with people from East Asia, the Philippines and elsewhere. Therefore, what "pristine" populations did they sample? And not only that but the physical evidence of pottery and other items from the Lapita culture which gave rise to eastern Pacific culture was found first in Melanesia. All of which makes the idea of the original eastern pacific people being NOT closely related to their western brethren pure hokum. Even the oral traditions contradict this.
Samoans are simply Chinese people with less than 20% Melanesian mix. It is not complicated. They simply evolved differently from the Chinese due to climatic and dietary difference. Your Aboriginal Chinese evolved to the the modern ones where as the Samoan people retained their tropical adaptation.
They are ALL still the same people descended from a common ancestor.
------- On the basis of archaeological, linguistic and now genetic information, the ancestors of the Polynesians were probably from East Asia, most likely Taiwan. “Probably 5,000 years ago, people started spreading out of Taiwan down through the Philippines, through Indonesia, along the coast of New Guinea and then on out to Polynesia,” Stoneking explained. -------
Polynesian people are not Melanesian people. They are not a hybrid between Mongoloids and Melanesians and I cannot believe you guys use such terms.
They are tropically adapted Chinese. There are those that are mixed - of course but not the Samoans.
--------- The researchers therefore looked at autosomal markers, which can shed light on the blend of human origins. Their most recent paper, scheduled for publication in the American Journal of Human Genetics, reports that 80% of the genes in Polynesians come from Asia and 20% from New Guinea. “It's a bit unusual, but it fits with some other evidence,” Stoneking said. --------
Samoans are ASIAN people not Melanesian from New Guinea.
Just like Bantu are directly related to East African Cushitic populations but less so related to the SAN and pygmy people.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Samoans have a lot of affinities with Sub-Saharan Africans in terms of culture and facial features. This is why they are a good analogy for why we shouldn't look at superficial adaption and culture to determine relatedness. In fact, craniometrics show Samoans to be part of the dysfunctional Negroid classification of people. From the surface they seem much closer to Bantu than to the Chinese.
Its when we look at genetics we see a different story. Samoans are much closer related to the Chinese than to Bantu Africans. The term Mongoloid is ignored by me, being that it is an unscientific term. Facial form for determining racial grouping of people has long ago been prove to be full of flaws. We shouldn't use terms from the multi-regional school of racism.
The Samoans and Chinese all descend from Paleo-Asiatic people of China that is clearly shown in their genetic tree. They share a recent common ancestor unlike the people of New Guinea and China which are more remotely related.
This is true for Egyptian people and the Bantu (yes including the modern Egyptian people especially the ethnic group we call Coptic people today). They have a common recent ancestor in the same way that Samoans and Chinese do and yet have facial features and cultural affinities that don't seem to relate. Genetics however sheds a light that penetrates much deeper than superficial adaptation which is exactly what culture and facial features are.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The Samoans and Chinese all descend from Paleo-Asiatic people of China that is clearly shown in their genetic tree. They share a recent common ancestor unlike the people of New Guinea and China which are more remotely related.
Paleo-Asiatic is a language not a gene. Stop trying to twist the facts in order to support absurd European nonsense. First off there are no "pure" populations in the Eastern Pacific from which to sample genes and claim to reconstruct the original populations there. Second the fact is that populations from Melanesia, New Guinea and Fiji ARE KNOWN FOR A FACT to have been among the first people of the Eastern Pacific. All this nonsense about people coming from mainland Asia and getting on a hypersonic boat passing New Guinea and Melanesia in order to create a population UNRELATED to those of New Guinea and Melanesia is retarded. The original populations of the Eastern Pacific have features MOST CLOSELY resembling Fijians, some Melanesians and some New Guineans. But the fact is also that Melanesia also has the highest physical and genetic diversity in the world, which again attests to the age of the populations there and the FACT that it is one of the examples engines of diversity from which populations like those of the Eastern Pacific derive.
This woman (note the elaborate hair do including fake hair and other things)
As well as other populations of Fiji have the CLOSEST PHYSICAL match to the original populations of Samoa and the rest of the eastern Pacific.
So what is Fiji on your genetic map? Where does it fit in? And that is precisely the point. It doesn't because people doing these studies don't WANT it to. They are REALLY trying to claim the Eastern Pacific as a "new race" of people UNRELATED to the aboriginal people of the rest of Asia who have been there for THOUSANDS of years. This includes New Guinea and Melanesia as well as other parts of South Asia.
In fact if you look at it the picture is more like this PHYSICALLY, meaning having a RANGE of eatures from dark to lighter skinned but all in the SAME FAMILY, therefore IMPOSSIBLE to be genetically distinct. :
Fijians
Therefore they ALL of them are part of the continuity that his Pacific culture. However, some bonehead Europeans want to maintain the farce that ancient Polynesians are an ancient DISTINCT population from the rest of the pacific, ie like this: [IMG][/IMG]
And not related to people like this from Melanesia:
When they all share a similar pattern of culture and identity.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This thread like many others of Osirion lately is silly, but as an asian I'll 'bite' anyway.
The main difference between Chinese and Samoans is simply that Somoans like many Polynesian people have more black (aboriginal) ancestry. than those of mainland northern Asia, although southern Chinese may have some aboriginal traits as well. Besides that, the cultures and languages are vastly different as well. Perhaps a better comparison would be Chinese and Tibetans who share closely related languages and cultures but still differ in certain features etc.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Of course people don't realize that places like the solomons, New Guinea and elsewhere in Melanesia have some of the highest diversity biologically outside Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This thread like many others of Osirion lately is silly, but as an asian I'll 'bite' anyway.
The main difference between Chinese and Samoans is simply that Somoans like many Polynesian people have more black (aboriginal) ancestry. than those of mainland northern Asia, although southern Chinese may have some aboriginal traits as well. Besides that, the cultures and languages are vastly different as well. Perhaps a better comparison would be Chinese and Tibetans who share closely related languages and cultures but still differ in certain features etc.
Good grief. Did you bother to read the evidence on the genetics of Samoans. That are not mixed with Melanesians or Aboriginals Black Asians. They have tropical adaptation due to climate and diet not mixture. There is very little evidence of mixture.
Good grief people!
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: Paleo-Asiatic is a language not a gene. Stop trying to twist the facts in order to support absurd European nonsense.
No, Europeans have always figured that Polynesian people were as you said - a hybrid between Aboriginal Black Asians and newly arrived East Asians. It is only genetics that has started to unravel this story to show that Polynesians are primarily East Asians and not a mixture.
Bantu also do not speak an Afro-Asiatic language but genetics shows that they are related to Afro-Asiatic speaking populations of NE Africa. The don't look like the NE African populations or have a culture very similar to them. However, looks are deceiving.
As for Paleo-Asiatic:
Posted by Troll Smasher (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
Actually Ghana is the most common source.
Still Bantu people.
People from Ghana are not Bantus idiot! You need to do some serious research first before talking.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: Paleo-Asiatic is a language not a gene. Stop trying to twist the facts in order to support absurd European nonsense.
No, Europeans have always figured that Polynesian people were as you said - a hybrid between Aboriginal Black Asians and newly arrived East Asians. It is only genetics that has started to unravel this story to show that Polynesians are primarily East Asians and not a mixture.
Bantu also do not speak an Afro-Asiatic language but genetics shows that they are related to Afro-Asiatic speaking populations of NE Africa. The don't look like the NE African populations or have a culture very similar to them. However, looks are deceiving.
As for Paleo-Asiatic:
As said many times, the original people of the Eastern Pacific were not East Asians in the sense of being "mongoloid" or like Modern people of East Asia. Genetics does not say this. The ONLY reason modern pacific people are claimed to be primarily derived from East Asians is because of the influx of such people in the last 500 years. Ancient Eastern Pacific people were no different than those of the rest of the Pacific and part of the diversity there.
All part of the same general family of people in the Pacific and not simply East Asian transplants.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Smasher:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
Actually Ghana is the most common source.
Still Bantu people.
People from Ghana are not Bantus idiot! You need to do some serious research first before talking.
Technically they are a mixture of a lot of different ethnicities but from a genetic point of view - the Bantu and the Ghanians are the same population of people.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Many of these recent genetic studies are bogus in trying to disconnect the original people of the Eastern Pacific from the Western "melanesian" islands. Not only are the people in the early photos from these Islands not "mongoloid" but they are closest in physical features to people from New Guinea, Fiji and other places in Melanesia. Hence, it is obvious they cannot be a "separate" population.
I am confused, why are you using terms like Mongoloid? Also, why are you dismissing genetic research based on superficial appearance? I must say I don't understand your point at all.
If Samoans are Chinese people with tropical adaptation, what does that have to do with the Melanesian people? What if Bantu people are Berbers with tropical adaptation and not related to San or pygmies in the same way Samoans are not related to Negritoes? I am not sure what the issue with that would be?
Anyway, I don't go by mongoloid, negroid or facial features to determine relatedness or even language groups or cultural affinities. To me, genetics is the last word.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
^^Osiron
That is because Rasol confused and hoodwinked you guys with ill-digested high sounding talks about R1B this and 02a that. Now you see it is all fuckery he is talking about. And all those god-forsaken fraudulent masonic scientists you cite ...all fake as well...
Lion!
Look with your eyes and see.
Posted by IronLion (Member # 16412) on :
To discuss genetics, one must also understand epigenetics. Some say this is more important that simply recounting the "Haplogroup R1B this and O2a that..."
Epigenetics 101
In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: over; above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.
Robin Holliday defined epigenetics as "the study of the mechanisms of temporal and spatial control of gene activity during the development of complex organisms." Thus epigenetic can be used to describe any aspect other than DNA sequence that influences the development of an organism.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Many of these recent genetic studies are bogus in trying to disconnect the original people of the Eastern Pacific from the Western "melanesian" islands. Not only are the people in the early photos from these Islands not "mongoloid" but they are closest in physical features to people from New Guinea, Fiji and other places in Melanesia. Hence, it is obvious they cannot be a "separate" population.
I am confused, why are you using terms like Mongoloid? Also, why are you dismissing genetic research based on superficial appearance? I must say I don't understand your point at all.
If Samoans are Chinese people with tropical adaptation, what does that have to do with the Melanesian people? What if Bantu people are Berbers with tropical adaptation and not related to San or pygmies in the same way Samoans are not related to Negritoes? I am not sure what the issue with that would be?
Anyway, I don't go by mongoloid, negroid or facial features to determine relatedness or even language groups or cultural affinities. To me, genetics is the last word.
Yes you are confused because Samoans are not Chinese with tropical adaptation. The genetics studies do not say that. And if you know anything about Pacific history you would know that this is not the case. The fact is that the culture we call "Polynesian" today originated in the lands of the western Pacific, in the Melanesian Islands into Fiji and then moved East. Almost ALL of the traditions there have their origins in the Western Pacific. In fact you are getting it backwards as Northern Asians derive from ancient Aboriginal populations who had tropical adaptation. The people of the Pacific are remnants of ancient Aboriginal Asian populations, like the Melanesians who never lost their tropical adaptation. The populations that they are claiming as being the populations from mainland Asia who migrated to Polynesia are aboriginal populations who were almost wiped out by the Chinese. Therefore, they were not Chinese. And if anything in the time periods being discussed they would have been tropically adapted to begin with like many other South Asian aboriginal types.
Now what I said was that the closest people culturally and physically to the Samoans and Pacific Islanders are the people of Fiji. This is amply documented in oral histories, physical archaeology and cultural traditions. Almost all histories and studies of the spread of Polynesian people starts with Fiji. Fiji is considered a Melanesian Island. Therefore, the strong relationship between Fiji and polynesia makes any such nonsense about a separation between Polynesia and Melanesia strictly nonsense. What they are really saying is that there is genetic difference between highland people from New Guinea and the Eastern Pacific, but highland New Guinea is not all of Melanesia.
However, this genetic study DOES NOT SAMPLE FIJIANS. Right there you see a big giant gap in the picture which makes the accuracy of the study suspect. Why? Because Fiji is like "Nubia", the "missing link" between Egypt and the rest of Africa, so by leaving Fiji out, they can pretend to present a separation between the Eastern Pacific and the rest of the Pacific that does not exist in reality.
Look at this map of the people studied:
Obviously, if ANY population is going to be closest to the people of Eastern Pacific it would be those of the Mid Pacific, like Fiji. So why did they not sample the people of Fiji?
Duh.
We all know the answer to that one.
But beyond all of that, the sample sizes and the fact that they focused on New Guinea, which they themselves admit is HIGHLY GENETICALLY DIVERSE to begin with makes this whole study questionable to say the least.
quote: Analyses of genetic variation at some informative loci, particularly the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) (reviewed in [16,17–19]), non-recombining Y-chromosome markers (NRY) (reviewed in [19,20]), and a small set of autosomal microsatellites [21] have provided divergent impressions of the population genetic structure of both Near and Remote Oceania. Because they have ¼ the effective sample size of autosomal markers, the mtDNA and NRY haplotypes have been particularly subject to the effects of random genetic drift, and each autosomal marker, no matter how informative, still represents a minute fraction of the total genetic variation among populations. Even so, these data have shown that the genetic variation in Near Oceanic populations is considerably greater than in Remote Oceanic ones, and that there are a cluster of haplogroups that developed in particular islands of Near Oceania between approximately 50,000 and 30,000 years ago. ..... Our sampling strategy concentrated on Papuan-speaking populations and their immediate Oceanic-speaking neighbors from the islands immediately to the east of New Guinea, in what is called Northern Island Melanesia, consisting of the Bismarck and Solomon Archipelagos (see Figure 1B). The three largest islands of the region were most intensively sampled—New Britain, New Ireland, and Bougainville—along with two nearby smaller islands (New Hanover and Mussau). Additional Pacific samples came from New Guinea (one set from the lowland Sepik region and one set from the Eastern Highlands), Micronesia (primarily from Belau), Polynesia (Samoans and one New Zealand Mãori group), and aboriginal Taiwan (Amis and the Taroko, a mountain Atayal group). The details of the sample locations and language family affiliations are given in Table S1 and in the Methods section.
Notice the following dendograms and how CLOSE Melanesians are to the Polynesians. Now if they had Sampled the people of places like Fiji and Tonga the relationship would have been MUCH CLOSER. Again a nonsense study to begin with because the genetic diversity in these islands is so great even WITHIN the Islands of New Guinea, let alone over 500 miles away in the Eastern Pacific. You would HAVE to sample closer populations to get an understanding of the TRUE relationship between Melanesia and so-called Polynesia. You can see this clearly in the distance between the people of Bougainville and the populations of New Guinea(in tan) and they are relatively close to each other.
And here is a list of the things that are documented to have appeared most likely FIRST in New Guinea:
Bark cloth Grass Skirts War clubs Grass and carved wood Houses Terrace agriculture (9,000 ybp) Elaborate war ceremonies and dance Body decoration, with bone, pearl, feathers and paint.
And so on.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
New Guinea an example some of the most ancient traditions of Asia:
And this is just the people of the Sepik river in New Guinea, there is much much more to it than that. But what makes the Sepik important are the ancient traditions of Haus Tambaran (ancestor "spirit" houses) and carved effigies.
^ I appreciate the pictures but aren't Melanesians also Asians? Are they too not a tropically adapted version of Chinese people and far closer related to Chinese people than to us Africans? Isn't their features just an example of convergent evolution which is exactly why we should not judge relatedness based on looks. I have heard it said that Melanesians are actually the most genetically distant people from us Africans where as Europeans are the closest to us. Completely counter-intuitive but such is where we are at!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
There is also evidence from Arabian M clades that may support the Fijian migration tradition.
Abu-Amero et al, Mitochondrial DNA structure in the Arabian Peninsula (2008)
quote:
However, as a few M1 haplotypes did not fit in the M1a1 cluster we did genome sequencing for two of them (Figure 2). Lineage 471 resulted to be a member of the North African clade M1b, more specifically to the M1b1a branch. As we have detected another M1b lineage in Jordan [38], it is possible that the Saudi one could have reached Arabia from the Levant or from northwest African areas. The second Saudi lineage (522) belongs to a subcluster (M1a4) that is also frequent in East Africa [37]. Recently, Tanzanian lineages have been studied by means of complete mtDNA sequences [39]. Three of these sequences also fall into the M1 haplogroup. Two of them belong to the Ethiopian M1a1 subclade (God 626 and God 635), and the third (God637) shares the entire motif that characterizes lineage M1a5 [37] with the exception of transition 10694. Therefore, this mutation should define a new subcluster M1a5a (Figure 2).
The lineages found in Tanzania further expand, southeastwards, the geographic range of M1 in sub-Saharan Africa. Inspecting the M1 phylogeny of Olivieri et al. [37] we realized that our lineage 957 [38] has the diagnostic positions 13637, that defines M1a3 and 6463 that defines the M1a3a branch. Therefore, we have placed it as an M1a3a lineage with an 813 retromutation (Figure 2). It seems that, likewise L lineages, the M1 presence in the Arabian Peninsula signals a predominant East African influence with possible minor introductions from the Levant.
Inclusion of rare Saudi Asiatic M sequences into the macrohaplogroup M tree.
The majority (12) of the 19 M lineages found in the Arabian Peninsula that do not belong to M1 [see Additional file 1] have matches or are related to Indian clades, which confirm previous results [30, 31]. In addition, in this expanded Saudi sample, we have found some sequences with geographic origins far away from the studied area. For instance, lineage 569 [see Additional file 1] has been classified in the Eastern Asia subclade G2a1a [40] but probably it has reached Saudi Arabia from Central Asia where this branch is rather common and diverse [41]. Indubitably the four sequences (196, 479, 480 and 494) are Q1 members and had to have their origin in Indonesia. In fact their most related haplotypes were found in West New Guinea [42]. All these sequences could have arrived to Arabia as result of recent gene flow. Particularly documented is the preferential female Indonesian migration to Saudi Arabia as domestic workers [43]. Five undefined M lineages were genome sequenced (Figure 3). It is confirmed that 5 of the 6 Saudi lineages analyzed have also Indian roots. Lineage 691 falls into the Indian M33 clade because it has the diagnostic 2361 transition. In addition, it shares 7 transitions (462, 5423, 8562, 13731, 15908, 16169, 16172) with the Indian lineage C182 [20], which allows the definition of a new subclade M33a. Lineage 287 is a member of the Indian M36 clade because it possesses its three diagnostic mutations (239, 7271, 15110). As it also shares 8 additional positions with the Indian clade T135 [20], both conform an M36a branch (Figure 3). Saudi 514 belongs to the Indian clade M30 as it has its diagnostic motif (195A- 514dCA-12007-15431). Lineage 633 also belongs to the related Indian clade M4b defined by transitions 511, 12007 and 16311. In addition it shares mutation 8865 with the C51 Indian lineage [20] that could define a new M4b2 subclade. We have classified sequence 551 as belonging to a new Indian clade M48 defined by a four transitions motif (1598-5460-10750- 16192) which is shared with the M Indian lineage R58 (Figure 3). Australian clade M42 [44] and New Britain M29 clade [24] also have 1598 transition as a basal mutation. However, they are respectively more related to the East Asia clade M10 [40] and to the Melanesian Q clade [27], as their additionally shared basal mutations are less recurrent than transition1598 [45].
All these Indian M sequences have been found in Arabia as isolated lineages that belong to clusters with deep roots and high diversity in India. Therefore, its presence in Arabia is better explained by recent backflow from India than by supposing that these lineages are footsteps of an M ancestral migration across Arabia.
The Saudi sequence 201 deserves special mention (Figure 3). It was previously tentatively related to the Indian M34 clade because both share the 3010 transition. However, it was stated that due to the high recurrence of 3010 most probably the 201 sequence would belong to a yet undefined clade [31]. The recent study of new Australian lineages [26] has allowed us to find out an interesting link between their Australian M14 lineage and our Saudi 201 sequence (Figure 3). The authors related M14 to the Melanesian clade M28 [24] because both share the 1719-16148 motif [26]. We think that the alternative motif shared with the Saudi lineage, 234-4216-6962, (Figure 3) is stronger, as 1719 and 16148 transitions are more recurrent than 234, 4216 and 6962 [45]. Therefore, we think that the last three mutations defined the true root of the Australian M14 clade and relate it to a Saudi Arab sequence.
This quote makes it clear that several Arabian clades correspond to genome found in New Guinea and Melanesia (e.g., clades 514, 201, 1719-16148 and etc.). The authors try to explain this to the recent introduction of Indonesian female workers to Saudi Arabia, an Indian backflow to Arabia and Australian camel herders. This explanation does not suffice since we know 1) Australian aborigines did not come to Saudi Arabia as camel herders and 2)Saudi Arabians are Wahabbis and rarely marry non-Arabs. They usually marry cousins.
Finally there is no documented Indian migration back into Arabia, nor is there a relationship between Arabic and the Dravidian languages. As a result, the idea of a backflow can not be supported.
On the otherhand, the evidence of Indian and African haplogroups in Arabia, would support the archaeological, linguistic and anthropological evidence supporting a recent migration of Dravidian speakers out of Nubia, into India.
As a result, the presence of these lineages in Saudi Arabia, must predate the 20th century and may relate to the migration of East Africans to Near Oceania, and Dravidian speakers to India in the past 4000 years since they are not related to ancient hg M lineages--lineages that would support the presences of these genomes in Arabia dating back to the first exit of AMH from Africa 60kya.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The Melanesians are not closely related to Chinese. They only recently arrived in Oceania from Africa. They are not part of the OOA exit 60kya.
The figure makes it clear that Africans and PNG share X,and Xl.This proves a relationship exist. ________________________________________ Haplotype X(hX) is found among people of Tanzania and Chad. Shimada et al argue that X(hX) is found in Melanesia.
Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698
We also find hg N1 in Oceania. The N1 hg is also found in Tanzania.
This is in addition to Cordaux et al (2003) who claimed that HV1 sequences of mtDNA clusters X and X1 are shared between Africans and Oceanians.
It is interesting that X(hX) and hg N1 are found in Tanzania and Oceania because the Fijians claim they original came from Tanzania to settle Fiji.
Many researchers 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.[b] 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 Australians are not related to the Melanesians.
Reference:
1. Tsunehiko Hanihare, Interpretation of craniofacial variations and diversification of East and Southeast Asia. In Bioarchaeology of Southeast Asia. (Eds.) Marc Oxenhan and Nancy Tayles (pp.91-111). Cambridge, 2005.
2. D.J. Laubenfels, Australoids, Negroids and Negroes: A suggested explanation for their distinct distributions. Annals Association of Am. Geographers, 58(1), 1968: 42-50.
3. Michael Pietrusewky, A multivariate craniometric study of the prehistoric and modern inhabitants of Southeast Asia, East Asia and surrounding regions:A human kaleidoscope. Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology, No. 43, 2006: 59-90.
5. M. Pietrusewsky, The Physical anthropology of the Pacific, East Asia: A multivariate craniometric analysis. . In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology,Linguistics and Genetics (pp.201-229). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
6. Tsang Cheng-Hwa, Recent discoveries at Tapenkeng culture sites in Taiwan;Implications for the problem of Austronesian origins. In The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics ,(Eds) L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (pp.63-74). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
7. L. Sagart, Sino-Tibetan-Austronesian an Updated and improved argument. In L. Sagart, R. Blench, A. Sanchez-Mazos (Eds), The peopling of East Asia Putting together Archaeology, Linguistics and Genetics (pp.161-176). RutledgeCurzon, 2005.
First of all the original migrants OOA population had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that the former population 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 osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ You are advocating the reverse OOA across the Atlantic?
This is based on X and X1?
Seems plausible. What additional genetic markers have been found supporting a West African to New World migration?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ I appreciate the pictures but aren't Melanesians also Asians? Are they too not a tropically adapted version of Chinese people and far closer related to Chinese people than to us Africans? Isn't their features just an example of convergent evolution which is exactly why we should not judge relatedness based on looks. I have heard it said that Melanesians are actually the most genetically distant people from us Africans where as Europeans are the closest to us. Completely counter-intuitive but such is where we are at!
Yes Melanesians are Asians so what does Africa have to do with it? Nobody said "Polynesians" are Africans. And no Melanesians are not tropically adapted Chinese people. Melanesians and the original polynesians were all tropically adapted Asians like many other Southern and South East Asians today and thousands of years ago. China has nothing to do with it.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ They don't all look alike but they are all related according you your own posting.
Based on this, these very different looking people are all part of the same population group having a recent common ancestor that was likely a Melanesian or Black Asian. Doesn't change my point - looks do not define relatedness. Nor does culture - these things define environment = climate and diet.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ They don't all look alike but they are all related according you your own posting.
Based on this, these very different looking people are all part of the same population group having a recent common ancestor that was likely a Melanesian or Black Asian. Doesn't change my point - looks do not define relatedness. Nor does culture - these things define environment = climate and diet.
No, your point was that the original people of the Eastern Pacific were tropically Adapted Chinese and more related to mainland Chinese people than Melanesians or other people in the pacific, which is pure nonsense on all levels.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Yes I said Polynesians are closer to aboriginal Chinese than to Melanesians. Perhaps thats because Melanesians are more diverse so there are populations that are more distant and therefore throws off the averages.
The question is still - which way did the Samoans come. New Guinea or Taiwan? You obviously say New Guinea. Not sure myself. Still could be tropically adapted Chinese that adopted Melanesian culture.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I believe the Samoans are a mixture of Classical Mongoloids and Melanesians.
I acknowledgement that there are two main divisions of East Asians: Han/Hua and Classical Mongoloid. If you don't acknowledge this fact how can you truthfully write an ancient history of the world and its people? Look at these photos.
Han/Hau
Classical Mongoloids
Above we see Han and Classical Mongoloid people. The later is darker than the former. There was no Ice Age in China. Mr. Expert explain why these populations have different color schemes when you claim that they are the descendants of the first African migrants to settle Eastern Eurasia.
You believe that if you deny racial difference you can ignore the reality of differences that exist between racial groups, who may in turn be classified into one of three major macroracial categories; Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.
Think for yourself. Stop being afraid to write what you believe based on the facts, instead of writing only what your European Masters have agreed upon.
If DuBois, JA Rogers and Carter G. Woodson, had been as cowardly as you, we would know nothing about the history of African people. I would rather stand on the shoulders of brave scholarly warriors like JA Rogers, than weakly repeat the messages given you by the established European masters you obey. These Europeans care little about our history and distort history facts, to support the status quo and deny we existed as founders of many Ancient civilizations.
The statement you can be black/Negro , but not African is a ruse used by scholars to distort the past in such a way as to make certain "Blacks", white, like when they write about the "black-skinned-white Egyptians.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
The African type in Asia can be traced to the African type that lived in China. This Negro type was characterized by sindonty. The earliest examples of sindonty date back to the Choukoudian/Zhoudian Upper Cave type not the sundonty pattern which arrived in the Pacific with the classical mongoloid people found in Indonesia. This classical mongoloids entered Southeast Asia and the Pacific after African speaking Manding and Dravidian speaking people had already settled much of the Pacific. This is supported by the Sindonty pattern found among the Japanese who have a Dravidian and African substratum in their language.
Secondly, archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien, was of a Oceanic Negroid/Melanesoid " (p.163).
These blacks were the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih Chang,writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China (1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the population in North China and that in the southwest and in Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively…."(p.64). By the Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69).
Many researchers believe that the Yi of Southern China were the ancestors of the Polynesian and Melanesian people.
Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan, Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases ( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China. The presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated with the Xia civilization.
The founder of the Xia civilization was Yu. The Great Yu was the regulator of the waters and the builder of canals. He is also alleged to be the inventor of wetfield adriculture. Wolfram Eberhard, in The Local culture of South and East China (Leiden,1968), maintained that Yu came from the south and established the Xia dynasty in Shansi.
Archaeological evidence supports this view. The foreunner of the Xia civilization was the Lung-shan (Longshan) culture. The Taosi ruins , a Longshan between the Fenhe and Chongshan ranges is considered a middle and late Xia period site. Another important Longshanoid site is Qingliangang. The Qingliangang culture is a decendant of the Hemudu culture and dates to the fifth millennium B.C.(K.C. Chang, "In search of China's beginnings new light on an old civilization", American Scientist, 69 (1981) pp.148-160:154).
The oldest neolithic culture in China is the Hemudu culture in northern Zhejiang province. This culture group had incised and cord-impressed pottery, rice and domesticated water buffalo, dog and pig (Chang, 1981: p.152). The Hemudu pottery is reminiscent of pottery found along the coastal areas of southeastern China and Taiwan (Chang, 1981: p.154). This indicates that southern Chinese, who were predominantly Black early settled those parts of China associated with the Xia and Shang civilizations.
In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang. The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result this dynasty is called Shang-Yin. The Yin or Oceanic Mongoloid type is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang, "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). The Austronesian or Oceanic Mongoloid type were called Yin, Feng, Yen, Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.
During the Anyang-Shang period, the Qiang lived in Ch'iang Fang, a country to the west of Yin-Shang . The Qiang people were often referred to as the Ta Qiang "many Qiang", they were used as agricultural workers, and used in Yin-Shang ancestral rites as sacrifice victims.
In Southeast Asia and southern China, ancient skeletal remains represented the earliest inhabitants as identical to the Oceanic type ( Kwang-chih Chang, The archareology of ancient China, (New Haven,1977) p.42; 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). Although Negritos were also established in north and southern China by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period the populations in North China and that in southern China and IndoChina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as Mongoloid and Negroid-Oceanic respectively, both having evolved out of a common Upper Plestocene substratum as represented by the Tzu-yang and Liu-Chiang skulls.
In addition to Oceanic Blacks in Southeast Asia and southern China shortly before the Christian era Africoids of the Mediterranean type entered these areas by way of India. Much of the archaeology in southern China is related to the Southeast Asian patterns, with numerous finds of chipped stone of the type found in Szechewan,Kwangsi .Yunan and in the western part of Kwangtung as far as the Pearl River delta.( Chang, 1977, p.76. ) Neolithic culture of southern China as the people were parallel to southeastern development. It seems from the evidence that in China there were several major areas where the Neolithic way of life characterized by farming for food, use of pottery and the making of stone instruments.
In Southern China the most well known early cultures were the Ta-p'enK'eng culture of the southeastern coast, cultures dating to the 5th millenium. The Ta-p'en-K'eng sites have a chracteristic cord-marked pottery dating to before theird millennium. A radio- carbon date is available for this culture of 4450-4350 BC. The color of the pottery ranges from buff to dark brown, the principal shapes of the vessels are large globular jars and bowls. The people of this culture also made many stone sinkers and dugout canoes.There is believed to have been an early horticultural revolution in the tropical regions of southeast Asia, with the domestication of several cultigens. As in Africa this culture was Aqualithic with most of the people living on mounds and pilled houses. These horticulturalist ate aqualtic animals such as fish and shellfish, and grew root crops such as yam and taro .The Ta-p'en-K'eng site has provided much insight into their agricultural origins as indicated by the great variety of cord marks on the pottery demonstrates. The habi tat of the ancient people who made this ware at Ta-p'en-K' eng, was widespread in IndoChina and even in southern China and Japan. The Hoabinhian culture of Vietnam and that of Ta-p' en-K'eng, were characterized by cord-marked pottery which is identical in both places , and it is possible that the Yang -shao site at Huang Ho basin in North China may have also been founded by blacks in southern China who probably been the cultivation of rice . In the southeast southerners began at Hupeh and Kuangsi the cultivation of means of artificial irrigation and by terracing of the mountain slopes. These same Austronesians were already using bronze before the Chinese. The women's standing was high, she participated in the worship which consisted of a mountain and snake cults.There is evidence from the physical anthropologist that skeletons from Shantung and Kiangsu show resemblances to the Negroid type of southern Chinese rather than Mongoloid, especially at the intial Ch'ing-lien -Kang and Ma chia-pang phases. As a result of this evidence it seems that agriculture was widely practiced in Southeast Asia and China long before the full impact of farming was felt in the North among the Chinese.
Neolithic technology in south China is typified by hunting with the bow and arrow. The stone inventories include shoulder axes, as those found at Ya-an in Sikang, and the island of Hainan. The ceremics are characterized by the long persistence of corded red ware. There was also painted pottery,black pottery, stone knives and sickles and pottery tripods , styles that later were duplicated in bronze. The people practiced single burials the appearence of decapitated heads at many sites in China suggest war and the expansion of the Chinese southward.
In ancient times due to the Chinese being a nomadic group, they probably cremated their dead and learned to bury their dead from the Blacks. The southern Chinese probably had their own writing system at an early date considering the - fact that they were well known traders and most trader-groups developed a script to keep records, yet we can not be sure of this fact. Moreover, the appearance of similar pottery signs on South Chinese pottery and North Chinese pottery indicate a common ideology for both groups.
Many of the elements of southern Chinese cultures and the impliments found in this area and Southeast Asia show an interrelationship. The people who live in Southeast Asia today speak the Austro-Asiatic languages, which are closely related to the Austronesian group. As indicated by the languages of the aborigines Ta-p'en-K'eng sites are found spoke Austronesian languages, the cultures of these groups were also Austronesian according to Dr. Shun-sheng Ling .
As in the African aqualithic, an extensive mound culture existed in China, an area strectching from i ts plateau in the west to the Western coast of the Pacific ocean, it includes the Huang-Huai(the Yellow River and the Huai River) plain of North China and the plain of the lower valley of the Yangtze River of central China, these mounds lie in the Ancient line of the Austronesian habitation. In accordance with oral tradi tion and Chinese proto-history mounds were in existence during the time of Huangti, and Fu-Hsi as reflected in the legendary narrative of the burial of Tai-Hao at Wan Chiul - chiu.
The mound culture began around 3,000 BC in China 7,000 years after a similar cul ture had developed in central and North Africa, which moved step by step to the lower valley of the Yangtze River, starting originally from the lower valley of the Yellow River. By about 1200 BC, the people practiced agriculture and ate aquatic animals.At the Kiangsu Province mound site called the Hu Shu culture,the mounds were man-made knolls called 'terraced sites '. The mounds are flat on the top, here the people placed their dwellings. These mounds served three purposes i) burial mounds, ii) religious places (i.e.,high ground) and iii) habitation. The mounds are believed to have been introduced by the people to China from the Euphrates-Tigris valley who are believed to have introduced the arts .
In conclusion, the sundonty pattern had nothing to do with the rise of mongoloid people. C.G. Turner's research makes it clear that the early Americans were sindonty not sundonty (see: Turner, "Teeth and prehistory in Asia, Scientific American,(Feb.1989) 88-96), in fact he places the origin of these sindonty people in Northern China at Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. An African influence in the rise of many cultures in East Asia is clearly supported by the archaeological, toponymic and linguistic evidence.
.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] First of all the original migrants out of Africa 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 :
As you can see from the above I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia. The OOA Blacks are represented by the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.
The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia ( Kwang-chih Chang, "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375)..
The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa (OOA) migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.
The Bushman probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.
The Anu or Pgymy people may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.
By the time the Anu people entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk civilization. The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.
It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were later settled by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.
By 1200 BC the Classical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire of China, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.
By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han are the ancestors of the contemporary Chinese and Korean people.
The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims.
The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.
This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.
The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.
Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.
.
To sum things up, the Australians represent the early settlers of the Pacific. I also acknowledged that the Hill Melanesians are probably decendants of the ancient settlers of Asia, but the coastal Melanesians are of recent African origin and show less genetic unity with the Hill Melanesians and Australians. See this article which discuss the molecular relationship between the Hill and Coastal Oceanians:
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-.
If contemporary Asians are decendants of the first migrations out of Africa, why don't they carry the ancient lineages associated with the Australians? This is a requirement because the Australians probably represent the OOA amh (anatomically modern humans).
I acknowledged that the Hill Melanesians are probably decendants of the ancient settlers of Asia, but the coastal Melanesians are of recent African origin and show less genetic unity with the Hill Melanesians and Australians. See this article which discuss the molecular relationship between the Hill and Coastal Oceanians:
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-.
Here is what this study says...
quote:
Analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nonrecombining Y chromosome (NRY) variation in the same populations are sometimes concordant but sometimes discordant. Perhaps the most dramatic example known of the latter concerns Polynesians, in which about 94% of Polynesian mtDNAs are of East Asian origin, while about 66% of Polynesian Y chromosomes are of Melanesian origin. Here we analyze on a genome-wide scale, to our knowledge for the first time, the origins of the autosomal gene pool of Polynesians by screening 377 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci in 47 Pacific Islanders and compare the results with those obtained from 44 Chinese and 24 individuals from Papua New Guinea. Our data indicate that on average about 79% of the Polynesian autosomal gene pool is of East Asian origin and 21% is of Melanesian origin. The genetic data thus suggest a dual origin of Polynesians with a high East Asian but also considerable Melanesian component
The researchers add:
quote:
The admixture estimates also depend critically on the choice of “parental” populations. Linguistic evidence strongly suggests that Taiwan was the ancestral homeland of the proto-Austronesians23 who ultimately colonized Polynesia, which in turn suggests that Taiwan Aborigines may be a more appropriate “Asian parental” population than Han Chinese.
However, mtDNA and NRY evidence suggests further bottlenecks in aboriginal Taiwanese1, 24 and that Han Chinese and other East Asian groups are highly similar to one another and are as similar (or even more similar) to Polynesians than are aboriginal Taiwanese.4 Thus, the use of a different East Asian group is unlikely to change the admixture estimate.
With regard to the “Melanesian parental” population, the admixture between Polynesian ancestors and Melanesians took most likely place somewhere in coastal/island New Guinea (probably the Bismarck Archipelago9, 10) because Austronesians arrived in Melanesia by boat, so it may be argued that a coastal/island New Guinea population would be more appropriate than a highland New Guinea population as the parental Melanesian population. However, coastal/island New Guinea populations usually exhibit some proportion of Asian mtDNA and/or NRY types4, 9 as result of genetic admixture, whereas non-Austronesian-speaking highland New Guinea groups usually lack Asian-specific markers resulting from a lack of such admixture.4, 25 Therefore, Highland New Guineans provide the best available estimate of a nonadmixed Melanesian population.
I difference in mtDNA for Australians and Melanesians , suggest that the later group were originally of recent African origin. This is my conclusion based on the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that preceed Han and Classical mongoloid skeletons.
I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Yes I said Polynesians are closer to aboriginal Chinese than to Melanesians. Perhaps thats because Melanesians are more diverse so there are populations that are more distant and therefore throws off the averages.
The question is still - which way did the Samoans come. New Guinea or Taiwan? You obviously say New Guinea. Not sure myself. Still could be tropically adapted Chinese that adopted Melanesian culture.
ALL Pacific Islanders are Asians. Melanesians simply represent examples of some of the OLDEST populations in Asia and are among the most Aboriginal of them all. Polynesians are also derived from these SAME populations, however they are also mixed with more recent migrations of Aboriginal Asian populations from South and Eastern Asia. The aboriginal type populations who supposedly sailed from Taiwan were not Chinese people. China is a nation, not an ethnic group, language or genetic lineage. There are many ethnic groups, languages and genetic lineages in China. And China is primarily responsible for wiping out the remaining Aboriginal populations of Taiwan over the last 500 years. So it is definitely not correct to keep calling the populations who migrated to the Pacific 4000 years ago aboriginal Chinese, they were simply aboriginal Asian types, with features aboriginal to many modern Asian populations, from Japan to Korea and China. In fact there are populations in all of these places who look very similar to some modern Pacific islanders, because they are all part of the physical diversity of Asia. The pacific simply is one of the last places where some of the more aboriginal populations who were tropically adapted have survived longer.
When these people got into the pacific they stopped off on many of the islands because they needed food, water and what have you. In the process they mixed with the natives of New Guinea and other local Melanesian populations. By the time these groups got to Fiji, which by many accounts is the FIRST island exhibiting Polynesian culture, they were simply one element out of a mixture of different ethnic types that had come together for the voyage east. In this process they picked up many traits and cultural traditions that would become what we now call Polynesian, but which originally developed as these populations moved through Melanesia into Fiji.
This is probably why among the Pacific Islands the local traditions of Samoa have high reverence for the Kings of Fiji. OF course by any and all accounts these original Polynesians were very dark and almost indistinguishable from certain other Melanesian populations, physically, even if they carried more of the genes that made them "closer" to the East Asian migrants to the pacific. It is only after the arrival of Europeans over the last 500 years that they have again become more mixed and therefore much lighter than the populations in the rest of the Pacific. In fact, that is why some people claim that Polynesian means MIXED to begin with, whereas Melanesian means black or unmixed (or less affected by outsiders). Also keep in mind that even in New Guinea you have dark skinned populations that look "Chinese" but aren't.
The genetic connection between Africa and the Melanasia is Y-DNA YAP.
Search for that connection and see...
Posted by markellion (Member # 14131) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
The typical reason why people have a hard time with a Black African Egypt is due to the dominant culture of the Bantu people from whence most African Americans are descended from.
Your statement is nothing more than a reversal of racist propaganda. Why the hell would you even think to say something like this.
Posted by cheekyboy (Member # 16969) on :
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: The genetic connection between Africa and the Melanasia is Y-DNA YAP.
Search for that connection and see...
I'm sorry but this is rubbish. Melanasians are not mostly DE, they are mostly E.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
cheekyboy
What study states that Melanisians are Hap E?
From what I know from Melanasians they are the furthest from Africans in terms of genetics.
Peace
Posted by cheekyboy (Member # 16969) on :
LOL how can DE be further from E than other lineages? And most Melanasians are actually E and J. I don't care about your bogus studies.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
cheekyboy
Where are you getting this information that Melanasians are E AND J.
What you fail to understand is that these people are closely related to polynesians, chinese, Japanese etc. They are NOT closely related to Africans.
Europeans are closer to Africans then these people are to Africans.
The only thing Bogus is your foolish ideas about Melanasians.
Where are you getting this information that Melanasians are E AND J.
What you fail to understand is that these people are closely related to polynesians, chinese, Japanese etc. They are NOT closely related to Africans.
Europeans are closer to Africans then these people are to Africans.
The only thing Bogus is your foolish ideas about Melanasians.
Peace
King you don't have a leg to stand on.
Everybody knows Melanasians are practically Africans. Who cares if some "YAP" gene copied itself onto a Y DNA.
Not all these genes are relevant.
Posted by Shady Aftermath (Member # 14754) on :
^ Good point.
Also I wonder if the "genetic distance" is a good thing. Afterall, incest is not a good thing (like in some cultures you MUST marry your own sister or else they kidnap you and kill you ) . If Europeans are closer to Africans than most other groups, then perhaps we're missing something. Perhaps the closer genetically people are, the more likely they are to harm each other.
It kind of makes sense when you look at siblings and how they behave.
Sometimes, our worst enemy is in the family.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
To me when you talk about the people in the Eastern Pacific, where the islands are small, you are talking about populations more susceptible to foreign contact having major impacts on the population. European contact has changed populations all over the globe so the Pacific is no exception. Just like there are mixed populations of blacks in the U.S. so are there similar mixtures of the original natives and other outsiders. In neither case does it really change the features of the original Africans in America or the original populations of the Pacific. Yet Europeans and their race science have tried to cover up the original features in some cases or tried to elevate certain features above others, which of course has resulted in some being confused. This of course has happened almost everywhere they conquered.
So in many places throughout the pacific there are populations today who are not the same today as they were even 100 years ago. Just like populations in America today aren't the same as they were 200 years ago (more natives).
Who are these "everyone"? Who or what states that Melanasians are Africans?
They have lived in that part of Asia for over 50,000 years. They have NOTHING to do with Africa. Whether you like it or not Europeans are closer to Africans than Melas.
Peace
Posted by cheekyboy (Member # 16969) on :
You're full of it man. How can a people who came OOA have "NOTHING" to do with Africa.
Can't you see how illogical you are.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
A book that discusses the "types" of original Maori showing the nonsense racial classifications used by whites to separate populations in the Pacific by skin color. Of course Polynesian in this scheme always means creamy colored mulatto or white, with Melanesian obviously meaning black and the former being identified as superior to the latter. This notwithstanding the fact that when Europeans first arrived in the Islands, most of the populations WERE primarily black, with a wide range of features among them.
quote: As members of the far-spread Polynesian race, the Maori folk of New Zealand are found on enquiry to have preserved the leading characteristics of that people. Leading features of such peculiarities are a stalwart physique and a high order of intelligence. To judge the Maori, or his brethren of northern isles, by the general state of backwardness in which they lived, by their somewhat primitive arts and artifacts, would assuredly be a misjudgment. It was here that Morgan erred when he placed the Polynesians in the lowest existing state of savagery, and indeed on the same culture plane as that of the natives of Australia. Evidence given in the following chapter will be sufficient to lift the Maori from such companionship. A very marked feature in the physical attributes of the Maori is noted in the many Melanesian affinities in evidence, showing that the Maori must have intermarried with those dark-skinned folk, probably since he left the sunlit isles of Eastern Polynesia. In the frequent occurrence of the darkskin colour, thick, protruding lips, flat nose, wide nostrils, and frizzy hair, we find proofs of a Melanesian admixture. This fact is also supported by an examination of the head form of our local natives. In a paper contributed to Vol. XXXVI. of the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, Dr. J. H. Scott gives the results of an examination of a series of eighty-three Maori skulls. He remarks:—“We know the Maori to be a mixed race, the result of a mingling of a Polynesian and a Melanesian strain. The crania already examined leave no room for doubt on this point.” He also shows that the average or typical Maori skull occupies the lower limit of the mesaticephalic group. Of the skulls examined, forty-three per cent. were dolichocephalic. Further on he writes:—“If any further proof were needed of the mixed origin of the Maori race it is given in this paper. An examination of the cranial indices, and of the extent of their variation, shows this clearly. These demonstrate two distinct types and intermediate forms. At the one extreme we have skulls approaching the Melanesian, as met with in the Fiji group, long and narrow, high in proportion to their breadth, pragnathous, and with wide nasal openings. At the other skulls of the Polynesian type, such as are common in Tonga and Samoa, shorter and broader, with orthognathous faces. And it must be noted that these extreme forms do not belong to different tribes, or districts, but may both be found in one.” Now, in view of our latest information as to the original inhabitants of these islands, the above remarks, as also the following passage, are of much interest. “The Melanesian characteristics are therefore more accentuated in the North than amongst the natives of the South Island. The prevalence of the Papuan form among skulls from the Bay of Islands has also been observed by M. M. de Quatrefages and Hamy.” Dr. Scott also notes the fact that the teeth in the skulls examined by him had the whole crowns ground away, but that he never detected any sign of dental caries. The present writer has noticed the same peculiarity in many old native skulls seen in caves and hollow trees, where they had been deposited after the exhumation of the bones of the tribal dead.
It is quite possible that some of the statements made by Dr. Scott will have to be modified when the results of the more extensive researches now being made by Dr. P. H. Buck are published.
The accounts preserved in oral tradition of the peculiarities of the original native folk of New Zealand, portray them as a dark-skinned folk of inferior culture. They had bushy heads of hair, flat faces, side glancing eyes, flat noses and spreading nostrils; “the nostrils seemed to be all the nose they had,” states one account. They were of spare build, and were an indolent, shiftless, chilly folk who complained of the coldness of the climate. They were found in occupation of the more northern parts of the North Island only, from Taranaki and the Bay of Plenty northward. None had settled in the South Island. If these were not a Melanesian folk, then they must have possessed strong Melanesian characteristics. A tradition among them explains that they were the descendants of the occupants of three drift canoes that had been carried from their home land by a westerly gale. All these particulars tend to support the conclusions of Dr. Scott. It may also be mentioned that a number of early voyagers and sojourners in this land mention the Melanesian element so strongly in evidence here. Another item of evidence, and withal a curious one, concerns an old native custom. Missionary Yates and other early writers have told us that the Maori mothers were in the habit of flattening the noses of their infants by means of pressure. This peculiar custom would not have originated among the purer, straight-nosed Polynesians; one can but think that it dates back to the flat-nosed aboriginal women who were taken to wife by the early Polynesian settlers on these shores.
It is quite possible that a certain amount of mixture with Melanesians has taken place here in later times. In the Bay of Plenty district a tradition has been preserved to the effect that, about four hundred years ago, a canoe made the land at Whakatane, having come from over sea. Probably it was a drift voyage, but the interesting part is that the newcomers are said to have been black men. They settled among the Awa folk at Meheu, or Omeheu, on the Rangitaiki River. Yet another interesting subject on which much might be said is the fact that, among our Maori folk exist certain arts, customs, institutions and artifacts that are unknown in Polynesia, but which are known in Melanesia. Thus the well-known curvilinear decorative art of the Maori finds no counterpart in Polynesia, but something much resembling it exists in New Guinea. The fortified villages of New Zealand, with stockades, fighting stages, and massive earthworks, were unknown in Polynesia. At Tonga alone was something of the kind seen in that area, a result of intercourse with Fiji, where, on Viti-levu, such fortified villages were numerous. These are but examples of many such striking parallels.
Again, this document reflects the fact that since Europeans have arrived in the Pacific they have tried to make a FALSE separation between Eastern and Western Pacific populations purely based on their own nonsense racial paradigms and not on facts. However, even with the overt racial propaganda they themselves make the point that much of what is so-called Polynesian culture actually originates in Melanesia and the sculpture and carvings they reference are those of the populations of the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea. These things drive home the point that Eastern Pacific populations were not separate from those of the Western pacific and most of the claims of such a separation are purely based on European "scientific" racial dogma than anything else.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
cheekyboy
So what you are trying to say is that Everyone who came OOA are still African?
Your arguement holds no weight. If thats the case then Chinese, Japanese, Indians etc are still Africans. It also means that Europeans are STILL Africans.
Peace
Posted by cheekyboy (Member # 16969) on :
Duh, if Asians are still Africans, then Europeans are still Africans.
The PN2 clade in INDIGENOUS to Africa so NATURALLY own the land rights.
But, Africans, they only exist for us to exploit them.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
cheekyboy
What more can be said to you? You think that Everyone is still African no matter how long they have been out of Africa. So all ethnicities are African and should be spoken about as such.
If this is how you feel then technically your right. Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Europeans, Native Americans all originally come from Africa even though it's been a looong Time.
Peace
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Bottom line the pacific has not only examples of some of the oldest populations in Asia but also the diversity of populations and features that has come about since the OOA migration, most of which are among tropically adapted people and represents a good cross section of many of the types that at one point probably inhabited much of Asia.
He doesn't think everyone is African. He is only trolling, creating fake talking points that can then be said to represent "Afrocentrism".. yawn... another fake agent provocateur..
Posted by cheekyboy (Member # 16969) on :
I'm not Afrocentric. I despise Africans....
If they're so great, why are they so poor. LOL.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Maybe because they don't have a culture that steal everyone else's ideas and traditions, pretending that it is theirs, then putting their name on it and selling it, while FORCING the natives not to be able to do the same. Or a culture that makes a profit off of stealing everyone else's property, land, labor and wealth in order to build their own thieving *ss culture. And maybe they don't believe they have risen above the nature of that great serpent the shining sun who eats his own tail....... Or mabybe they aren't fake prophets of the sun who never built any ancient sun temples anywhere and who actually destroyed those they came across, who bring death on a stick to all those who actually worshiped the sun....
Posted by TormentedSoul88 (Member # 6729) on :
^ Indeed, spot on as always Doug. Cheekyboy, get lost Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Hmmm..... and New Zealand is right next to Australia isn't it? Something fishy here no doubt in this "Polynesians ain't related to aborginal blacks (melanesians)" stuff.
Posted by justheretolearn (Member # 16983) on :
Doug please check your private messages when you get the chance, I WOULD LOVE to here your opinion about a certain topic. I've been reading the posts on this site for a while but didn't register till today .
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
I have been reading several reports on this and I think I will leave this alone for now. It appears to be too many unanswered questions.
The best research I have found is as follows:
Polynesian origins: Insights from the Y chromosome Bing Su*, Li Jin*,†, Peter Underhill‡, Jeremy Martinson§, Nilmani Saha¶, Stephen T. McGarvey‖, Mark D. Shriver**, Jiayou Chu‡‡, Peter Oefner‡, Ranajit Chakraborty*, and Ranjan Deka††,§
At this time, however, it is not possible to conclusively localize the center of origin of the Polynesian ancestors.
mtDNA data suggested a spread of humans from Taiwan to Polynesia by way of a corridor through the Philippines and Indonesia. A pattern involving nucleotide substitutions in the control region of the mtDNA genome, dubbed the Polynesian motif (5, 6), was found in high frequencies in this corridor with the highest in Polynesia. Related types of this motif also were found in appreciable frequencies in this area of distribution and the Taiwanese populations showed the highest diversity. Based on these observations, the origin of the Polynesian motif was traced to Taiwan (6), which seemed to provide strong genetic support to the express train hypothesis. A recent reanalysis (8) of the published mtDNA data (3, 5), however, questioned the validity of this proposition. Richards et al. (8) argued that, based on assessment of divergence times for the motif and age estimates of the relevant populations, mtDNA data do not support a Taiwanese origin of the Polynesians. Rather, the evidence is more consistent with an island Southeast Asian ancestry, the homeland being in eastern Indonesia.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Here is a summary of the issues surrounding polynesian settlement. Some of it is truly based on data and some of it is more based on ideology than anything else.
quote: The human settlement of the Pacific Islands represents one of the most recent major migration events of mankind. Polynesians originated in Asia according to linguistic evidence or in Melanesia according to archaeological evidence. To shed light on the genetic origins of Polynesians, we investigated over 400 Polynesians from 8 island groups, in comparison with over 900 individuals from potential parental populations of Melanesia, Southeast and East Asia, and Australia, by means of Y chromosome (NRY) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers. Overall, we classified 94.1% of Polynesian Y chromosomes and 99.8% of Polynesian mtDNAs as of either Melanesian (NRY-DNA: 65.8%, mtDNA: 6%) or Asian (NRY-DNA: 28.3%, mtDNA: 93.8%) origin, suggesting a dual genetic origin of Polynesians in agreement with the "Slow Boat" hypothesis. Our data suggest a pronounced admixture bias in Polynesians toward more Melanesian men than women, perhaps as a result of matrilocal residence in the ancestral Polynesian society. Although dating methods are consistent with somewhat similar entries of NRY/mtDNA haplogroups into Polynesia, haplotype sharing suggests an earlier appearance of Melanesian haplogroups than those from Asia. Surprisingly, we identified gradients in the frequency distribution of some NRY/mtDNA haplogroups across Polynesia and a gradual west-to-east decrease of overall NRY/mtDNA diversity, not only providing evidence for a west-to-east direction of Polynesian settlements but also suggesting that Pacific voyaging was regular rather than haphazard. We also demonstrate that Fiji played a pivotal role in the history of Polynesia: humans probably first migrated to Fiji, and subsequent settlement of Polynesia probably came from Fiji.
The colonization of Polynesia which ranges from Hawaii in the north to Easter Islands in the east, Fiji in the west, and New Zealand in the south, is still a matter of debate. According to linguistic evidence, Polynesian languages are closely related to each other and belong to the Austronesian language family that can be traced back to East Asia, in particular to the present-day languages of Taiwanese Aborigines (Blust 1999Go; Diamond 2000Go). Furthermore, linguistic evidence (Gray and Jordan 2000Go) is usually interpreted to support the "Express-train" hypothesis (Diamond 1988Go), according to which Polynesian ancestors moved rapidly from Eastern Asia into the Pacific without significant admixture with Melanesians (we use the term "Melanesia" in the geographic sense, to include here the mainland of New Guinea and surrounding islands, also referred to as Near Oceania).
Archaeological evidence suggests that western Polynesian islands (Fiji, Futuna, Samoa, Tonga) were settled 2,100–3,200 years ago by people belonging to the so-called Lapita cultural complex that originated 3,000–3,500 years ago in Island Melanesia, in particular the Bismarck Archipelago (Kirch 2000Go). However, some archaeologists argue that the Lapita cultural complex originated about 6,000 years ago in China and thus associate the spread of Austronesian languages with the Neolithic spread of material culture, including agriculture and Lapita, from East Asia into the Pacific under the Express-train scenario (Bellwood 1978Go; Diamond and Bellwood 2003)Go, whereas others suggest a strict Melanesian origin of the Lapita cultural complex (White et al. 1988Go; Terrell 1989Go; Terrell et al. 2001Go). Besides the 2 "extreme" models, the "Express train" assuming an Asian origin of Polynesians with no or little admixture of ingenious Melanesians and the "Entangled bank" assuming a long and complex history of human interactions starting from the first occupation of Melanesia in the Pleistocene (Terrell 1988Go), there are additional "intermediate" models such as the "Triple I" (Green 1991Go). The Triple I model assumes that components of the Lapita cultural complex are results of Intrusions of nonindigenous Asian components together with the Integration of indigenous Melanesian elements and new Innovations (Green 1991Go).
In contrast to the clear evidence for an Asian origin of Polynesian languages and a probable Melanesian origin of the Lapita material culture found in Polynesia, the genetic origin of Polynesians is still contentious. Studies of maternally inherited mtDNA markers have favored an Asian origin of Polynesian maternal lineages (Melton et al. 1995Go; Redd et al. 1995Go; Sykes et al. 1995Go; Trejaut et al. 2005Go) in support of the Express-train hypothesis. In contrast, studies of paternally inherited DNA markers from the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY) have revealed a mostly Melanesian origin of Polynesian paternal lineages (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000Go; Capelli et al. 2001Go; Underhill, Passarino, Lin, Marzuki et al. 2001Go; Hurles et al. 2002Go) supporting the "Slow Boat" hypothesis (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000Go). The Slow Boat model assumes that Polynesian ancestors originated in Eastern Asia but mixed extensively with indigenous Melanesians before colonizing the Pacific (Kayser, Brauer et al. 2000Go). Unfortunately, a similar term "Slow boat to Melanesia" was subsequently used to suggest a Southeast Asian genetic origin of Polynesians in the Pleistocene based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence (Diamond 2001Go; Oppenheimer and Richards 2001Go). Studies of autosomal DNA markers suggest different scenarios depending on the markers used, for example, a Melanesian origin of Polynesian hemoglobin genes (Hill et al. 1985Go, 1987Go) versus an Asian origin of Polynesian human leucocyte antigen (HLA) genes (Mack et al. 2000Go; Mack and Erlich 2005Go).
In this study, we have used NRY and mtDNA markers to investigate the paternal and maternal genetic origin of over 400 individuals from 8 different Polynesian island groups by comparing them with over 900 individuals from Melanesia, Southeast and East Asia, and Australia. This significant increase over previous studies, both in populations and markers analyzed, provides new insights into the history of the human colonization of the Pacific.
While many studies seem to go round and round on this issue, the latter part of this extract identifies most of the concerns addressed.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
As a side note, check out the Americas and the similarities of the aboriginal populations there as well.....
Just a note on the idea of the Samoans being tropical "Chinese". Many people do not realize how much an impact European contact, disease, labor importation and migration have had in the Pacific.
But in Samoa, the main colonial resource was Phosphorus and here, just as in the rest of the Pacific, the Europeans imported laborers from all over to do the work. In Samoa, the main populations brought in were CHINESE. Over time, these Chinese, because of Chinese government oversight, gained a legal status ABOVE that of the native people of Samoa. The Samoans had no representation, got paid no wages and were legally 3rd class citizens in their own country.
In fact there has been a sometimes tense issue of Chinese migration to Samoa over the last 100 years. Starting with workers imported to work on German mines, to later migrations, Samoans have been trying hard to maintain their identity and culture from being overrun by foreigners, most of which is directly due to the influence of European capitalists.
quote: The first Chinese arrived in Samoa as free settlers during the 19th century in small numbers until a ban was issued by Malietoa Laupepa 1880 to prevent people of Chinese descent from settling in Samoa. However, in 1903, Wilhelm Solf managed to acquire the support of the Samoan Fono and lifted Malietoa's ban, allowing Chinese coolies to work in the plantations as indentured labourers. However, coolies faced harsh conditions and were subjected to brutal treatment from their masters.
Chinese immigrants were constituted almost entirely of men, and most of the labourers took Samoan women as wives and by 1918 offspring of Chinese-Samoan descent were a visible minority, although smaller in terms of population compared to offspring of European (particularly German) and Samoan descent.[11] This eventually led to a ban in 1931 that prohibited Chinese men from interacting with Samoan women on all grounds. By the end of World War II only 295 Chinese remained, all of whom had either taken Samoan wives or were unmarried. Many Chinese coolies had since returned to China or remained in Samoa with their families.
In 1994, China provided financial assistance to the construction of the government building in Apia.[12] Aeau Peniamina, deputy leader of Samoa Democratic United Party, caused a minor controversy in January 2005 when he remarked that "there are too many Chinese in the country". Joe Keil, the Minister of Tourism, who is of part-Chinese descent, promptly rebutted Peniamina's remarks.[13]
Samoans of Chinese descent are well-represented in the civil service,[14] and China established diplomatic relations with Samoa in November 1975.[15] People of Chinese descent are especially well represented in the retail and restaurant sectors, notably in Apia.[16]
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
The majority of African Americans come from bantu speaking people. The majority of African Americans come from central africa and southern africa with the majority all consisting of bantu groups and language. More African Americans came from Cameroon, Nigeria, Congo, and Angola than from Liberia, Senegambia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Ivory Coast put together. The majority that were taken from West-Africa were still of Bantu origin. Non-bantu is in the minority with African Americans.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
Samoans aren't related to chinese. They are a polynesian people and they are related to many other polynesians and melanesians you find the in the south pacific.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: As a side note, check out the Americas and the similarities of the aboriginal populations there as well.....
It is said that indigenous south Americans and tribes from southern U.S. are in fact polynesian in origin.
Posted by Bettyboo (Member # 12987) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheekyboy:
quote:Originally posted by KING: cheekyboy
Where are you getting this information that Melanasians are E AND J.
What you fail to understand is that these people are closely related to polynesians, chinese, Japanese etc. They are NOT closely related to Africans.
Europeans are closer to Africans then these people are to Africans.
The only thing Bogus is your foolish ideas about Melanasians.
Peace
King you don't have a leg to stand on.
Everybody knows Melanasians are practically Africans. Who cares if some "YAP" gene copied itself onto a Y DNA.
Not all these genes are relevant.
Melanesians are NOT Africans. They are aboriginal indigenous Asian stock.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
Samoans aren't related to chinese. They are a polynesian people and they are related to many other polynesians and melanesians you find the in the south pacific.
What genetic report says this? What I have read and provided in this thread is that there is evidence supporting a Taiwan origin of the Samoans in the last 5000 years.
Regardless of their phenotype, which Dough has provided many examples of, I have yet to see evidence supporting a Melanesian, Micronesian or even a Polynesian origin of the Samoans.
Where is the genetic evidence? I realize the Samoans are culturally Polynesian, but does that make them Polynesian? Sudanese are culturally Arab but they are only partially Arabic. Samoans are likely only partially Polynesian and in fact more aboriginal Chinese.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
What does aboriginal Chinese mean Osiron?
You realize that the history of the Pacific over the last 150 years makes it almost impossible to make an accurate genetic assessment of what the lineages were even 200 years ago. Many islands have been heavily influenced by invaders and migrants in that period of time. Case in point, there are almost 0 full blood Hawaiians in Hawaii. And not many with more than 50% Hawaiian blood. And of course almost all the original Hawaiians were dark black with curly hair like Melanesians. Hawaii is even farther away from Melanesia than Samoa, but yet the Hawaiians had features very similar to Melanesians, like those of Fiji.
My opinion is that like anything else, the researchers are using selective samples to bias the results and create a fake distinction between Eastern Pacific populations and those in the Western Pacific. As I noted earlier, FIJI is acknowledged by many as the homeland of Polynesian culture and the Fijians are black and the closest physically to the original Hawaiians and other so-called Polynesians. However, the genetic study did not sample people from Fiji. By omiting Fiji from the sample set they are making the Eastern Islands artificially distant from the Western ones. No doubt if they did sample the Fijians, they would no doubt be closer to the polynesians than the Melanesians. Now, with all this concern about the origin of the polynesians and the fact that the oldest artifacts from that part of the Pacific are in Fiji, why aren't there any DNA studies from FIJI?
All the studies I have seen sample Melanesia and Polyenesia but skip over Fiji. That sounds odd don't you think?
Keep in mind that Melanesia only means black while Polynesia means mixed, which indicates that those of the eastern Islands have more recent admixture. But all of those islands were originally populated by blacks.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ China is an awfully large place. What is interesting about the article is that it disputes the idea that Samoan are related to Australian and Negrito people. They apparently are neither a mixture or related and are indeed from the mainland of Asia and related to other people that are referred to as Chinese.
Samoans aren't related to chinese. They are a polynesian people and they are related to many other polynesians and melanesians you find the in the south pacific.
What genetic report says this? What I have read and provided in this thread is that there is evidence supporting a Taiwan origin of the Samoans in the last 5000 years.
There is no Taiwan evdience of Samoans. The indigenous people of Taiwan belong to the many aboriginal stocks you find in the south pacific. The aboriginal Taiwanese fit in with polynesian stock but they aren't the Great-granddaddy of Samoans. They probably came from the same bark of other south pacific polynesians but from a different branch.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ Then why doesn't genetic evidence support that clearly? Look at how different Ethiopians are from the Bantu and yet its clear that they are related genetically. Why not the Polynesian and Samoan people?
Posted by Narmer Menes (Member # 16122) on :
Could you please state the languages spoken in Ghana, Nigeria, and the Senegambia (which according to the data that you haven't refuted apparently make up to 60% of the AA descendancy) that are Bantu. Waiting.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: No, the dominant haplogroup found in African Americans is that same as that found in Bantu speaking people. Concepts of race are ignored by me.
We don't have to use genetics to know the origin of AAs. The historical evidence makes it clear that we came mainly from the Senegambia--not Bantu speaking areas like the Congo.
.
Actually Ghana is the most common source.
Senegambia (Senegal-Gambia) * 5.8% Sierra Leone 3.4% Windward Coast (Ivory Coast) * 12.1% Gold Coast (Ghana) * 14.4% Bight of Benin (Nigeria) * 14.5 Bight of Biafra (Nigeria) * 25.1% Central and Southeast Africa (Cameroon- N. Angola) * 24.7%
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
More Samoans from the late 19th and early 20th century:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uofdlibrary/362582673/in/set-72157594470035920/
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bad/1200620704/in/set-72157601604831057/
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) . If Europeans are closer to Africans than most other groups, then perhaps we're missing something. Perhaps the closer genetically people are, the more likely they are to harm each other.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/6/10895616_110f860d0a.jpg
