posted
Hi In research there is no such thing as proof. A hypothesis can only be confirmed or disconfirmed. A hypothesis is confirmed with abundance of evidence supporting that hypothesis, a hypothesis is disconfirmed when abundance of evidence is presented showing that the original hypothesis is not confirmed by the opposing/new evidence.
TSD make a thread debating each one of these themes. TSD to beginn each thread make a hypothesis stating that either the Old Europeans, Indians, Shang, Sumerians or Olmec were not Black or African people. Present your hypothesis along with the sources confirming your hypothesis and then we can determine if your hypothesis is confirmed.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In research there is no such thing as proof.
That would appear to settle this matter, unless anyone else *does* claim to have proof of the hypothesis mentioned in the thread.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, the appropriate question would have been, what the said advocate means by "Africoid". For all we know, the advocate might simply be referring to 'tropical' folks as "Africoid", but I'll reserve the explanation for the specific context in which this word was placed to the advocate himself.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Perhaps, the appropriate question would have been, what the said advocate means by "Africoid". For all we know, the advocate might simply be referring to 'tropical' folks as "Africoid",...
That said, even early Europeans are 'Africoid', heck ALL humans were once Africoid, but that says little about the more recent genetic and cultural relationships of these mentioned peoples.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Good point. There are indeed levels of scientific discourse according to one's location in society and intellectual development.
In America, if one gave the physical description (all points bulletin-APB) of what we know today as an Olmec head (phenotype), in 99.999999999999999% (get my drift) the police would arrest a black man, or at best, the new illegal immigrant from Mexico who is an Indian from Oaxaco, or someone from Guatemala, also Indian (native American) or at worse, a South East Asian Indian or dark skinned Arab, who happened to be in the vicinity.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Good point. There are indeed levels of scientific discourse according to one's location in society and intellectual development.
In America, if one gave the physical description (all points bulletin-APB) of what we know today as an Olmec head (phenotype), in 99.999999999999999% (get my drift) the police would arrest a black man, or at best, the new illegal immigrant from Mexico who is an Indian from Oaxaco, or someone from Guatemala, also Indian (native American) or at worse, a South East Asian Indian or dark skinned Arab, who happened to be in the vicinity.
Would we though? This was posted on BV
There are definitely indigenous groups that show similarities. And it seems they have been around since Penon Woman and Luzia, some of the oldest people on the Americas.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
In Latin America, as you know there are many versiones of ethnic group mixing with various names like:
mestizo/a; European( mostly Spanish) but also Portuguese, Italian)/Indian (Maya, Aztec, Carib, Arawak, etc mulato/a; European/African zambo/a: Indian/African Trigueno/a: European, Indian and African: phenotypes vary with degree of ethnic mixture.
There are numerous designations to match phenotype.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but don't assume that those phenotypes are of mixed people. Those are phenotypes of indigenous people.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Mixed and indigenous are not mutually exclusive. Where one begins and the other ends all depends on the degree of which ethnicity is predominant.
The indigenous Peruvians voted for Fujimori because he was one of them.i.e. phenotype (non European), Jennifer Beals, despite her 'mixed' ancestry look more Italian, Greek, etc while saying the mixed approximate many Southern Europeans. Many Latinos are mestizo/mulato and are part of the indigenous group but with cultural hegemony identifying with the conqueror (European) has more benefit than identifying with one's mother (usually india or africana). Many latinos will (less so today) look down on their abuelita because she is black or brown. y tu abuelita, donde esta? ya tu sabes!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I agree on that. I am just saying that the Olmec phenotypes do not need to be mixed to be indigeous.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are definitely indigenous groups that show similarities. And it seems they have been around since Penon Woman and Luzia, some of the oldest people on the Americas.
The statues created by the Olmecs have LIPS that native Americans don't carry. Notice the Olmecs are wearing leather helmets that are synonomous with East Afrikans, so the connection you are trying to make doesn't do a good job.
posted
There are plenty of native Americaqns with thick lips as seen in that picture. And you have no evidence those helmets are depictions of leather forget about east African.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the highlands of the Andean countries, they wear a hat/cap similar since it is cold. The type of caps of the Olmec may be war regalia, similar to the modern battle helmet. just guessing!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mixing in Images from Maya statues and Olmec statues won't work. Can you please show me a native American with features similar to this one:
While your at it can you please show me a native American with a Afro because I can show you a Olmec statue with an Afro.
Please keep in mind that even today in West Afrika their are groups that still make statues of human heads so explain why two groups located at different locations have similar practices of making statues of human heads?
Bronze head of an ancient king from Benin, West Africa, The tradition of fine sculpture in West Africa goes back long before 1000 B.C.
Don't argue against the Afrocentrics about the Olmecs because the Afrocentrics are well informed about history. Now if you are not properly informed about history then open up a book written by Ivan Van Sertima and then read it, Christopher Columbus within his journals noted that Afrikans were already here in South America when he reached so end the debate please, because your not ready to debate with a Afrocentric.
TRUTH STANDS ALONE, LIES ARE NUMEROUS THOUGH ALL LIES WILL FADE AWAY.
In the end of the Olmec debate we will all come to the conclusion that the Olmecs were a civilization created by native Afrikans and native Americans working together.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Has anyone considered the word Polynesian?
Poly = a composite
Ne = Negro
sian = Asian
Composite of Negro and Asian
Olmecs were polynesian perhaps? Is this not a simple explaination?
Poly means many and Nesos means Islands in Greek. Nothing to do with Negro and Asian.
Did you really take me seriously? Good grief. It was a pun.
Regardless, in a social context Polynesians indeed have the phenotypes of both Asians and Negroes. According to Brace, they cluster closer in term of bone morphology to Sub-Saharan Africans than Nubians. In fact, they cluster closer to Sub-Saharan Africans than they do to any other group by far.
posted
You are using Brace now? Come now. Brace who said Egyptians clustered with Europeans?
Cranial variation in prehistoric human skeletal remains from the Marianas.
Ishida H, Dodo Y.
Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan. ishida@sapmed.ac.jp
Nonmetric cranial variation and facial flatness of the Pacific and circum-Pacific populations are investigated. The peoples of the Marianas, eastern Polynesia and Hawaii form a cluster and show affinities in terms of nonmetric cranial variation with the Southeast and East Asians rather than with the Jomon-Ainu, a view which is widely supported by others. Facial flatness analysis also indicates that Polynesians have different patterns of facial prominence as compared with the Jomon-Ainu. These results increase the difficulty of accepting the Jomon-Pacific cluster proposed by Brace and his coworkers. Although genetic and nonmetric cranial variation reveal relatively close relationships, the Mariana skeletons are markedly different in facial flatness and limb bone morphology from those of Polynesians.
quote:You are using Brace now? Come now. Brace who said Egyptians clustered with Europeans?
Another poster tired to use this same arguement and I shall point out to you as I did with him. I personally emailed Brace and he told me the reason for the clustering of Egyptian samples closer to Europeans was because of the Giza E series which dates to the Late Period. During the Late Period there were migrations into Egypt from Phonecians,Greeks,and Carian mercenaries. Please note that Brace does not have any Sahelian Africans nor people from Ethiopia. For his so-called Sub-Saharan African series he is using people from Benin or the Western African forest regions.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: You are using Brace now? Come now. Brace who said Egyptians clustered with Europeans?
Cranial variation in prehistoric human skeletal remains from the Marianas.
Ishida H, Dodo Y.
Department of Anatomy, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Japan. ishida@sapmed.ac.jp
Nonmetric cranial variation and facial flatness of the Pacific and circum-Pacific populations are investigated. The peoples of the Marianas, eastern Polynesia and Hawaii form a cluster and show affinities in terms of nonmetric cranial variation with the Southeast and East Asians rather than with the Jomon-Ainu, a view which is widely supported by others. Facial flatness analysis also indicates that Polynesians have different patterns of facial prominence as compared with the Jomon-Ainu. These results increase the difficulty of accepting the Jomon-Pacific cluster proposed by Brace and his coworkers. Although genetic and nonmetric cranial variation reveal relatively close relationships, the Mariana skeletons are markedly different in facial flatness and limb bone morphology from those of Polynesians.
Polynesians are gentically more removed from Africans than Europeans. However, in terms of bone morphology they do have a superficial resemblance. This completely undermines the argument that because the Olmecs had features that are similar to Africoid it does not mean that they are indeed recently African related peoples. How we group people socially is usually based on superficial markers such as skin color and facial features.
Lets keep on focus. Olmec features are likely that of Polynesian people. Polynesian people have bone morphology that is more Sub-Saharan in appearance. However, these people are more unrelated to Sub-Saharan Africans than the Swiss.
One might argue that the mutation rate used to determine age of the occurrance of a certain mutation is incorrect.
The superficial appearance is rather overwhelming. Though genetically unrelated these people do indeed appear to be African with a slight bit of Asian:
quote:You are using Brace now? Come now. Brace who said Egyptians clustered with Europeans?
Another poster tired to use this same arguement and I shall point out to you as I did with him. I personally emailed Brace and he told me the reason for the clustering of Egyptian samples closer to Europeans was because of the Giza E series which dates to the Late Period. During the Late Period there were migrations into Egypt from Phonecians,Greeks,and Carian mercenaries. Please note that Brace does not have any Sahelian Africans nor people from Ethiopia. For his so-called Sub-Saharan African series he is using people from Benin or the Western African forest regions.
Correct Ausar, SidiRom's argument is also a logical fallacy [Origin/Source fallacy] - in which you attack a premise because of who/where it comes from, instead of proving that the premise is incorrect. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it is not a fallacy, for ine simple reason. You are not arguing against the character of the person, but the methodology he uses. And if that same methodology has shown erroneous conclusions then it will be flawed in other studies. As far as Brace sampling later populations, I don't know about that.
As for Polynesians and Olmecs, I think that is as farfetched as Africans. Those features already exist in Indigenous populations.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
sidirom quote: __________________________________________________________ As for Polynesians and Olmecs, I think that is as farfetched as Africans. Those features already exist in Indigenous populations. ___________________________________________________________________
posted
Suppose we posit that the Olmecs were related to Pacific peoples including Polynesian, Melanesian and/or Australian....as well as possibly Northern Asians.
What would be wrong with that theory?
What facts would show the above theory to be flawed?
posted
Any population group that lives in isolation from the main group tends to have the same phenotype as the original group. Andaman, Borneo, SE Asian?tribes, Negritos-Pilipines, Aborigenes., etc that are separate by natural barriers over thousands of years will hvae a different genotype depite facial attributes of Africoid groups!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: Any population group that lives in isolation from the main group tends to have the same phenotype as the original group. Andaman, Borneo, SE Asian?
Does this also apply to the Neanderthals in Europe, and their counterparts in Africa?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would apply to Africa or Asia than to Europe. Most of the isolated groups are physically in Asia but their isolated has retained an African past, despite being removed from Africa for x thousands of years! What has been discovered in Europe has been done. Th eonly thing is to find more DNA of past migrations dues to climate.
Asia on the other hand, has many undiscovered 'secrets' due to location The jungle is an excellent protector of life;s treasures. Europe is devoid of this due to climate predicament. Borneo, Melanesians, Andamans, Negritos, etc are peoples stranded in a time warp based on their location. These 'fringe dwellers' are a resource for hte future on how and why they did not go the way of their northern Asian brethren!
Perhaps with back migration these people found refuge in a familiar environment! hard to say.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Suppose we posit that the Olmecs were related to Pacific peoples including Polynesian, Melanesian and/or Australian....as well as possibly Northern Asians. What would be wrong with that theory? What facts would show the above theory to be flawed? I'm just asking.
Polynesians are a recent group, and no evidence of contact. Australian Aborigines, possibly. IF you look at the Yamana, Luzia and Aborigines, it could easily have been from anicent migrations.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Suppose we posit that the Olmecs were related to Pacific peoples including Polynesian, Melanesian and/or Australian....as well as possibly Northern Asians. What would be wrong with that theory? What facts would show the above theory to be flawed? I'm just asking.
Polynesians are a recent group, and no evidence of contact. Australian Aborigines, possibly. IF you look at the Yamana, Luzia and Aborigines, it could easily have been from anicent migrations.
Perhaps I am using outdated classifications. There are some racial models that have 4 distinct groups: Caucasians, Negroes, Mongols and Polynesians. Pacific Island people and Australians belong to the racial group Polynesian under such system. I realize that such a system is unscientific but this is what I meant.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read that Polynesian people are supposedly a hybrid between Australoid and Mongoloid.
Basically meaning that I should have said that the Olmecs were of an ancient Australoid migration.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I just read that Polynesian people are supposedly a hybrid between Australoid and Mongoloid.
Basically meaning that I should have said that the Olmecs were of an ancient Australoid migration.
Someone posted here not to long ago about the finds of skulls in South America that seem to be more related to Australian aborigines than migrants from Asia. I will see if I can find it. The conclusion that they came to was that there were different waves of migrations, some from the south and some from the north. Likewise, lets not forget that the facial features of a population are more due to environment and climate than anything else. If look at the populations around the tropical belt of the earth, they look pretty much the same no matter what continent they are on: African, Australian, South Indian, South East Asian, Polynesian, Amazonian, etc. So these similarities between Africans and others around the world confirms this fact. Many of the native Guatemalan Indians are quite dark, as well as many other Native Americans in North and South America, with the same skeletal features as other native Americans. Variety is a fact of nature and we should not be surprised at all by this.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom quote: __________________________________________________________ As for Polynesians and Olmecs, I think that is as farfetched as Africans. Those features already exist in Indigenous populations. ___________________________________________________________________
In your warped world I bet even Chairman Mao would have been African if he lived in antiquity
Now if everything and everyone in ancient times were African then tell me who and what were not African? let me guess your worst enemy white Americans ancestors and everything surrounding them who you daily battle regardless how outlandish your claims are, everything else besides their past is African according to you, right?
Maybe its hightime for you to respect that in this world there exist other people besides African-Americans and Euro-Americans, and trying to downplay other peoples achievement by claiming it's not theirs on the basis of ambiguous physical apperance but rather one must be either white or black is just rediculous. It seems according to you one thing is either African or European, and anything not suitable and falls outside this realm is not independent but must be place accordingly. That way of thinking is just as racist as those who you unconsciously try to confront and same time imitate.
First you targeted the Dravidians and now the Olmec. I'm sorry but its hard to take you seriously even though you seem to have a Phd degree.
Olmecs were exactly what they were namely Indigenous Americans, not Africans and not Europeans, period.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being facetious but everybody's ancestry eventually goes back to Africa and to two phenotypically inner African progenitors.
Genetics has shown that all living humanity outside of Africa go back to an East African man having the NRY CR-M168 mutation and all living women have an East African ancestress who was of the L3* mtDNA paragroup that yielded the M and N haplogroups.
The thing is NRY and HVSI mtDNA, while true indicators of lineage, do not determine phenotype.
Southern Indians, "Negritos," Kooris, Papuans, and Melanesians, their phenotypes aren't the result of local environmental adaptation of a non-black people who turned black. They retained the basic features of their prelimary Out of Africa progenitors. What we see today is lateral variation not total environmental homoplasy.
One of the oldest if not the oldest human fossil skulls of the America's
was dubbed Luiza and is a type of the black indigenous to the Americas. They're known as PaleoAmerinds and had a geographic spread encompassing Lower California to Tierra del Fuego. At 11,500 years of age, the black phenotype of the prehistoric Americas well precedes the Olmec civilization most likely provides the clue to the looks of the faces of many Olmec art pieces. This is not to deny whatever cultural contributions the historic Melanesians, Asians, and Africans apparently gave to native civilizations.
At present we can only offer best shot guesses as to what Luiza's (and all other craniometrically "black" PaleoIndians) DNA lineage was and from where in the eastern hemisphere did those having it wander.
Since we don't have Luiza's DNA we can only go by the reports on the haplogroups of today's Amerinds, trying to focus on data about those ethnies still displaying PaleoIndian craniometry and post-cranial measurements.
Then we have to take into consideration the approximate time her types were prominent, the coalescence and divergence times of the preposed associated haplogoups, and the time for demographic spread by land (across Beringia and from there down to southeastern South America) or sea (embarking from Australia, New Guinea, or elsewhere in Melanesia across the Pacific to the western hemisphere coasts ranging from western South America northward to Lower California).
The land route makes us wonder how much tropical adaptation would have remained after maybe 15-20ky in Central Asia, Siberia, and west Beringia. The sea route makes us rethink what we have believed about maritime skills 15-19kya. But, mtDNAs M & N as well as NRYs C-M130 & D-M174 most likely arrived in Australia by boat more than 50kya.
Of course the sea route would support the "blackness" of Luiza and her type since the Koori, Papuans, and Melanesias are doubtlessly black, i.e., ulitrichous hair (mostly), brown skin, full facial features (often including alveolar prognatism) which in most nations' racial constructs add up to qualifying a persons' blackness on sight.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The land route makes us wonder how much tropical adaptation would have remained after maybe 15-20ky in Central Asia, Siberia, and west Beringia. The sea route makes us rethink what we have believed about maritime skills 15-19kya. But, mtDNAs M & N as well as NRYs C-M130 & D-M174 most likely arrived in Australia by boat more than 50kya.
Yes, the most substantial real issue associated with the Olmec is whether some of them reached South America by Sea, as opposed to -exclusively- Bering Strait.
Whatever the case - they are the aboriginal Natives of America - in every possible way.
It's wrong of others to try to "claim" indigenous civilisations at the expense of Native peoples.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whence the First Americans? ScienceNOW Daily News 13 December 2005
The largest collection of early American skulls ever studied is lending credence to a controversial theory that two distinct populations of humans--rather than one--colonized the New World. If true, the findings indicate that people who shared an ancestry with modern day Australians and Melanesians may have settled on the continents somewhat earlier than immigrants from northeast Asia. Not so long ago, the origins of the first Americans seemed fairly certain: Beginning about 12,000 years ago, people from northeast Asia entered North America via the Bering landbridge in several waves of immigration. These ancestors of present-day Native Americans spread out to populate the entire New World. But in recent years, some archaeologists have argued that the first immigrants to the Americas were people from southeast Asia who share ancestors with native Australians and Melanesians. Chief amongst them has been Walter Neves of the University of Sao Paolo in Brazil.
This week, Neves claims new support for this hypothesis from an analysis of 81 prehistoric skulls found in the Lagoa Santa region of southeast Brazil. Unearthed over a 150 year period, most of the skulls range from 7500 to 8500 years old, although two skulls were dated to around 11,500 years ago. Detailed measurements of the skulls, combined with statistical analyses of their morphology, shows that they most closely resemble those of present-day people from Australia and Melanesia, whose skulls tend to be long and narrow with projecting faces, Neves and his Sao Paolo colleague Mark Hubbe report online this week in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. People from northeast Asia, on the other hand, tend to have skulls that are short and wide with relatively flat faces.
Because skulls similar to those at Lagoa Santa have been found in North and South America, Neves and Hubbe conclude that their data support a hypothesis in which two distinct populations colonized the New World: one group from southeast Asia that is morphologically similar to Australians and Melanesians, which arrived around 12,000 years ago (also via the Bering landbridge), and a second group from northeast Asia, which followed soon after and eventually gave rise to today's Native Americans. As for the immigrants fromwith southeast Asia, they may have been replaced after the second group from Asia arrived or may even have held on until Europeans arrived on the continent, Neves says.
Archaeologist Tom Dillehay of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, says he had some doubts about Neves' hypothesis when it was first proposed, but "Neves is building a more solid case with these skeletons." But physical anthropologist Clark Larsen of Ohio State University in Columbus notes that the differences between the Lagoa Santa skulls and those of Native Americans do not necessarily indicate that they represent two biologically distinct groups. Changes in diet over time can modify the jaw muscles in ways that also alter skull shape, without major genetic changes, Larsen argues. Concludes Dillehay: "Neves' hypothesis may now be the most plausible explanation, but it is not yet fully acceptable."
posted
I wouldn't put to much emphasis on a reconstruction. At best it might give us some ideas of the features. But not skin color or hair type, etc. Penon woman classified close to Luzia, and is the oldest human found in th Americas. Look at her reconstruction. All I can say is the bias is obvious:
That said. I do not consider people Black just because they are dark skinned and curly haired or broad faced. Thge term was thrown loosely by European colonizers. But not all groups adopted the term. But if basically you are saying you buy into Eurocentric racialism, many of those groups would fall into the racial label. I don't
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The land route makes us wonder how much tropical adaptation would have remained after maybe 15-20ky in Central Asia, Siberia, and west Beringia. The sea route makes us rethink what we have believed about maritime skills 15-19kya. But, mtDNAs M & N as well as NRYs C-M130 & D-M174 most likely arrived in Australia by boat more than 50kya.
Yes, the most substantial real issue associated with the Olmec is whether some of them reached South America by Sea, as opposed to -exclusively- Bering Strait.
Whatever the case - they are the aboriginal Natives of America - in every possible way.
It's wrong of others to try to "claim" indigenous civilisations at the expense of Native peoples.
posted
Nonesuch. You're giving the whiteman a god complex and playing blackmen cheap.
The Kmtyw are on record labeling themselves and the Nehesis as black and ... wait, let me let one of greatest scholar scientist of the classical Arabic age tell it:
quote: "And they said, 'The number of blacks is greater than the number of whites, because most of those who are counted as whites are comprised of peoples from Persia, the mountains, Khurasan, Rome, Slavia, France, and Iberia, and anything apart from them is insignificant.
But among the blacks are counted * Zanj * Ethiopians * Fezzani * Berbers * Copts * Nubians * Zaghawa * Moors
the people of * Sind * the Hindus * the Qamar * the Dabila * the IndoChinese and those beyond them.
The sea is more extensive than the land, and the islands in the sea between IndoChina and Zanzibar are full of blacks, like the * Sarandib * Kalah * Amal * Zabij and its islands up to Hindustan and IndoChina * Kabul and those coasts.
"They said, 'The Arabs come from us -- not from the whites -- because of the similarity of their colour to ours. The Hindus are more yellow in color than the Arabs, yet they are counted among the black peoples."
Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz Kitab Fakhr as-Sudan 'Ala al-Bidan Baghdad: self-published, 815 C.E.
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: I do not consider people Black just because they are dark skinned and curly haired or broad faced. Thge term was thrown loosely by European colonizers. But not all groups adopted the term. But if basically you are saying you buy into Eurocentric racialism, many of those groups would fall into the racial label. I don't
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The emphasis is not on the reconstructions. The emphasis is on the skulls. Peñon woman, like Luiza, is likened to Oceanics.
quote:
One particularly well-preserved skull of a long-headed female, who has been dubbed Penon Woman, has been carbon dated to 12,700 years ago.
[According to Dr. Sylvia Gonzalez:] "They appear more similar to southern Asians, Australians and populations of the South Pacific Rim than they do to northern Asians," Dr Gonzalez, of Liverpool John Moores University, told the British Association's annual meeting in Exeter.
"We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups."
She said there was very strong evidence that the first migration came from Australia via Japan and Polynesia and down the Pacific coast of America.
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: I wouldn't put to much emphasis on a reconstruction. At best it might give us some ideas of the features. But not skin color or hair type, etc. Penon woman classified close to Luzia, and is the oldest human found in th Americas. Look at her reconstruction. All I can say is the bias is obvious:
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the evidence well supports a Southern American sea landing by a Oceanic people probably originating from the Pacific. Probably a Melanesian/Australian people that were tropically adapted.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arabs were no different than Europeans in their loose labeling of people. Still doesn't make a person a label. What they saw themselves as, and what genetics shows, that I will buy.
I highly doubt the Polynesian claim for Olmecs, Luzia, Peñon, etc. More like Polynesians are decended from the same people Australians and Amerinds are. Luzia and them did not migrate straight to the South. They followed the coast line from Asia to America. The problem with finding remains is the sea line is much higher now.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: Arabs were no different than Europeans in their loose labeling of people. Still doesn't make a person a label. I highly doubt the Polynesian claim for Olmecs,
Polynesian is also a label.
Olmec is a label.
The distinction between Polynesian and Olmec is a form of labeling.
As for your discourse, it consists of *little else* other than and artifice of self-contradictory, selective, and inert labels, which you either like or dislike for reasons having nothing to do with any of the peoples in question - and everything to do with your own personal preferences.
Genetics has little to do with any of your labels.
It is only mentioned in passing, in and after the fact attempt to rationalise your preferred labeling bias.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: Arabs were no different than Europeans in their loose labeling of people. Still doesn't make a person a label. What they saw themselves as, and what genetics shows, that I will buy.
I highly doubt the Polynesian claim for Olmecs, Luzia, Peñon, etc. More like Polynesians are decended from the same people Australians and Amerinds are. Luzia and them did not migrate straight to the South. They followed the coast line from Asia to America. The problem with finding remains is the sea line is much higher now.
The evidence speaks of people having tropical adaptation in such a way that it is difficult to follow the beach combing land bridge theory. The argument is that they would have lost their tropical adaptation if they had followed such a arduous route. There is also evidence that counters the existence of tropical adaptation in people of the Nothern parts of the North American continent (Kennewick man).
What evidence are you basing your opinion on?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The evidence speaks of people having tropical adaptation in such a way that it is difficult to follow the beach combing land bridge theory.
I concur. Few anthropologist assert dogmatically that all Native Americans are descendant from "siberian", North East Asians.
Most concur that there were several different migrations - possibly including pacific/oceanic migrations.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: Arabs were no different than Europeans in their loose labeling of people. Still doesn't make a person a label. What they saw themselves as, and what genetics shows, that I will buy.
I highly doubt the Polynesian claim for Olmecs, Luzia, Peñon, etc. More like Polynesians are decended from the same people Australians and Amerinds are. Luzia and them did not migrate straight to the South. They followed the coast line from Asia to America. The problem with finding remains is the sea line is much higher now.
The evidence speaks of people having tropical adaptation in such a way that it is difficult to follow the beach combing land bridge theory. The argument is that they would have lost their tropical adaptation if they had followed such a arduous route. There is also evidence that counters the existence of tropical adaptation in people of the Nothern parts of the North American continent (Kennewick man).
What evidence are you basing your opinion on?
Not at all. The Beach combing rudimentary boat trip would have not been a multigenerational expansion of the northern regions. Tropical adaptation would not have been lost in the same way land treckers going through cold regions would have.
Posts: 163 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: Arabs were no different than Europeans in their loose labeling of people. Still doesn't make a person a label. What they saw themselves as, and what genetics shows, that I will buy.
I highly doubt the Polynesian claim for Olmecs, Luzia, Peñon, etc. More like Polynesians are decended from the same people Australians and Amerinds are. Luzia and them did not migrate straight to the South. They followed the coast line from Asia to America. The problem with finding remains is the sea line is much higher now.
The evidence speaks of people having tropical adaptation in such a way that it is difficult to follow the beach combing land bridge theory. The argument is that they would have lost their tropical adaptation if they had followed such a arduous route. There is also evidence that counters the existence of tropical adaptation in people of the Nothern parts of the North American continent (Kennewick man).
What evidence are you basing your opinion on?
Not at all. The Beach combing rudimentary boat trip would have not been a multigenerational expansion of the northern regions. Tropical adaptation would not have been lost in the same way land treckers going through cold regions would have.
What evidence supports this hypothesis?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic