quote:

---

Where is the relevant proof?

---

quote:

---

In research there is no such thing as proof.

---

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",...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
sidi,

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.
 

---

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
 

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?

---

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.

Hotep
 

---

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
 
Greetings


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.

Hotep
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

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.

---

quote:

---

You are using Brace now? Come now. Brace who said Egyptians clustered with Europeans?

---

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.

This might be interesting
http://www.anthropologie.ch/bulletin/bulletin_pdf/9.24%20Bulbeck_Text.pdf.

---

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:


 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

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.
 

---

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
sidirom quote:
__________________________________________________________
As for Polynesians and Olmecs, I think that is as farfetched as Africans. Those features already exist in Indigenous populations.
___________________________________________________________________

The Olmec were Africans. Here is a poster from Marc Washington supporting this fact.
[ http://www.mightymall.com/Faces.Millenniums.Before.Christ/02-16-000-00-03.htm ]

http://www.mightymall.com/Faces.Millenniums.Before.Christ/02-16-000-00-03.htm
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Olmec were Africans. Here is a poster from Marc Washington supporting this fact.
http://www.mightymall.com/Faces.Millenniums.Before.Christ/02-16-000-00-03.htm

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

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.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Polynesians are Natives of the Polynesian Islands.............



.......and speakers of a related series of Austronesian languages, they are not a race.

Their biological background is diverse and their migration history, controversial and unresolved:
http://solo.manuatele.net/facts.htm
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

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.

---

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.
___________________________________________________________________

The Olmec were Africans. Here is a poster from Marc Washington supporting this fact.
[ http://www.mightymall.com/Faces.Millenniums.Before.Christ/02-16-000-00-03.htm ]

http://www.mightymall.com/Faces.Millenniums.Before.Christ/02-16-000-00-03.htm

---

yeah right ===>

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.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
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


this pic is a clickable link

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.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

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 by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
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 by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

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.

---

Agreed.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
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

---

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.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3634544.stm

---

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:

---

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,

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
1 You obviously have no idea who Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz was,
and yes it matters who he was and why he wrote that essay and why it's
in a certain specific dialect

---

quote:

---

2 The Kmtyw left the first record of loosely labeling anyone black

---

quote:

---

4 It's unproven Luiza's folk came through Beringia, her skull indicates the Oceania route

---

quote:

---

5 The "Australians" are sho nuff black as are the Papuans and Melanesians,
they don't make cover for it nor are they ashamed of it

---

quote:

---

6 Too bad you have a hang up about black. Mosts blacks love the skin
they're in ala the blacker the berrie the sweeter the juice

---

quote:

---

BTW - a rough 10,000 years seperates Lady Peñon and Luiza from the Xi (Olmec)

---

quote:

---

Altakruri The Kmtyw left the first record of labeling anyone black

---

quote:

---

Sidirom: But that does not mean a race called black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Unless you can prove the existence of races - including mixed races - that is just a red herring.

---

quote:

---

That you resent the fact that Kmtyw were black, really is your -singular obsessive- problem, and not theirs, nor ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
1 You obviously have no idea who Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Jahiz was,
and yes it matters who he was and why he wrote that essay and why it's
in a certain specific dialect

---

Feel free to enlighten me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
2 The Kmtyw left the first record of loosely labeling anyone black

---

Like Kemsit. But that does not mean a race called black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
4 It's unproven Luiza's folk came through Beringia, her skull indicates the Oceania route

---

How so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
5 The "Australians" are sho nuff black as are the Papuans and Melanesians,
they don't make cover for it nor are they ashamed of it

---

Being called something by colonialist powers for centuries tends to do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
6 Too bad you have a hang up about black. Mosts blacks love the skin
they're in ala the blacker the berrie the sweeter the juice

---

LOL. I've dated girls as dark as Dinka. You speak out the wrong orifice. They still did not have Black skin, it was dark brown. Black is just a relative term. And it doesn't apply to all dark peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
BTW - a rough 10,000 years seperates Lady Peñon and Luiza from the Xi (Olmec)

---

Yep. Your point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Unless you can prove the existence of races - including mixed races - that is just a red herring.

---

Unless you can show that they had a perception of race

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
You need to do your own homework before shooting off your mouth with booshish
disinforming those who know even less than you do about Africana.

---

quote:

---

BG4:5. Just as in Africa today the
Kmtyw had two broad colour (not race -- that's your stupid terminology)
designations black and red. So stew about it in frustration to your heart's
delight.

---

quote:

---

Where are the Oceanic skulls along the proposed Beringia route? What
evidence is there for Oceanics making and wearing clothes that resist
subarctic cold? Oh! I see in one generation droves of Oceanics
paddled north along the Asian coast invented coats and boots
continued paddling along the coast of Beringia and then south along the
coast of North America loosing cobbler schools to finally arrive in South
America; like as if they knew it were there right from the start.

---

quote:

---

Yeah, rrrright. Snap goes Occam's Razor. The simplest scenario is
Oceanics making the direct hop from Oceania to South America dribble
by dribble. Only obsessive Beringia enthusiasms even allows for any
other consideration.

---

quote:

---

More ignorance on your part. You obviously don't know these people's self-identifier.
You just love giving the whiteman a god complex don't you? People just couldn't
have known they were black before Euro colonialists told them so because
they were too blank minded to look see and know their own skin colour.

---

quote:

---

You figure it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You have it backwards, as usual. [quote]
Speak for yourself.
[quote]I don't claim the Km.t had a perception of 'races'.
I don't have a perception of 'races.'
On the other hand: Cearly - YOU DO have a racial ideology, and like all who do.....you can't make any sense out of it.
Don't blame us because you can't make sense out of your race rhetoric.
And don't try to reverse the issue, by asking us to make sense...of your nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
You need to do your own homework before shooting off your mouth with booshish
disinforming those who know even less than you do about Africana.

---

Don't think so. You still have not shown the relevance.


doesn't do the homework assignment on what the indigenous Australians call
themselves but shunts this failure by introducing the off topic of legends

Course grade F-
write any comment you want on the report card
this session is through
your miserable display deserves no further comeback however you goad one

quote:

---

BG4:5. Just as in Africa today the
Kmtyw had two broad colour (not race -- that's your stupid terminology)
designations black and red. So stew about it in frustration to your heart's
delight.

---

And white and yellow. But no current Egyptologist attributes it to usage of a people.

quote:

---

Where are the Oceanic skulls along the proposed Beringia route? What
evidence is there for Oceanics making and wearing clothes that resist
subarctic cold? Oh! I see in one generation droves of Oceanics
paddled north along the Asian coast invented coats and boots
continued paddling along the coast of Beringia and then south along the
coast of North America loosing cobbler schools to finally arrive in South
America; like as if they knew it were there right from the start.

---

About as many droves as would paddle from Oceania only more land to stop at. At please show that they couldn't have survived in those areas, much like the Yamana do in Tierra del Fuego.

quote:

---

Yeah, rrrright. Snap goes Occam's Razor. The simplest scenario is
Oceanics making the direct hop from Oceania to South America dribble
by dribble. Only obsessive Beringia enthusiasms even allows for any
other consideration.

---

Snap, first show that Oceanics were in those islands earlier than Penon Woman.

quote:

---

More ignorance on your part. You obviously don't know these people's self-identifier.
You just love giving the whiteman a god complex don't you? People just couldn't
have known they were black before Euro colonialists told them so because
they were too blank minded to look see and know their own skin colour.

---

Feel free to quote from their legends how they described themselves as such. Considering they aren't Black colored, then it is only myopic people like you who would buy into the Black identity.

quote:

---

You figure it out.

---

None worth mentioning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
doesn't do the assigned research on alJahiz thus will never understand
bt always roorag about his relevancy

---

quote:

---

doesn't do the assigned reading and so is clueless as to what BG:45
reads and in its place raises the irrelevancy of colours not written in the text

---

quote:

---

simply ignores the devastating logic of Oceania to South America voyaging
all within tropical latitudes; assumes north Pacific routers survived
subarctic cold virtually naked day and night

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
You need to do your own homework before shooting off your mouth with booshish
disinforming those who know even less than you do about Africana.

---

Don't think so. You still have not shown the relevance.


doesn't do the homework assignment on what the indigenous Australians call
themselves but shunts this failure by introducing the off topic of legends

Course grade F-
write any comment you want on the report card
this session is through
your miserable display deserves no further comeback however you goad one

quote:

---

BG4:5. Just as in Africa today the
Kmtyw had two broad colour (not race -- that's your stupid terminology)
designations black and red. So stew about it in frustration to your heart's
delight.

---

And white and yellow. But no current Egyptologist attributes it to usage of a people.

quote:

---

Where are the Oceanic skulls along the proposed Beringia route? What
evidence is there for Oceanics making and wearing clothes that resist
subarctic cold? Oh! I see in one generation droves of Oceanics
paddled north along the Asian coast invented coats and boots
continued paddling along the coast of Beringia and then south along the
coast of North America loosing cobbler schools to finally arrive in South
America; like as if they knew it were there right from the start.

---

About as many droves as would paddle from Oceania only more land to stop at. At please show that they couldn't have survived in those areas, much like the Yamana do in Tierra del Fuego.

quote:

---

Yeah, rrrright. Snap goes Occam's Razor. The simplest scenario is
Oceanics making the direct hop from Oceania to South America dribble
by dribble. Only obsessive Beringia enthusiasms even allows for any
other consideration.

---

Snap, first show that Oceanics were in those islands earlier than Penon Woman.

quote:

---

More ignorance on your part. You obviously don't know these people's self-identifier.
You just love giving the whiteman a god complex don't you? People just couldn't
have known they were black before Euro colonialists told them so because
they were too blank minded to look see and know their own skin colour.

---

Feel free to quote from their legends how they described themselves as such. Considering they aren't Black colored, then it is only myopic people like you who would buy into the Black identity.

quote:

---

You figure it out.

---

None worth mentioning.

---

quote:

---

Salassin the banned anti-Kemetic troll writes: when you try to categorize a ton of people under some moniquer such as Black

---

quote:

---

Altakruri: Why its worthless to chase a troll - doesn't do the assigned research on alJahiz thus will never understand but always roorag about his relevancy doesn't do the assigned reading and so is clueless as to what BG:45reads and in its place raises the irrelevancy of colours not written in the text simply ignores the devastating logic of Oceania to South America voyaging all within tropical latitudes; assumes north Pacific routers survivedsubarctic cold virtually naked day and night

---

You're quite right, which is why i'm placing Salassin - back on ignore.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Oh, now I see. There's a setting that I can activate to let this Eurocentric
poser talk to the hand all day long without knowing that he's even barking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Altakruri: Why its worthless to chase a troll - . . . .

---

You're quite right, which is why i'm placing Salassin, who was actually banned from this forum anyway - back on ignore.

---

quote:

---

Altakruri writes: * doesn't use a map and so simply ignores the devastating logic of direct
Oceania to South America voyaging all within tropical latitudes;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Skulls in South America Tell New Migration Tale
By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 12 December, 2005
5:01pm ET


The skulls belonging to the earliest known South Americans—or Paleo-Indians—had long, narrow crania, projecting jaws, and low, broad eye sockets and noses. Drastically different from American Indians, these skulls appear more similar to modern Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Altakruri writes: * doesn't use a map and so simply ignores the devastating logic of direct
Oceania to South America voyaging all within tropical latitudes;

---

The scene depicts groups of prehistoric, intrepid mariners moving, *not* out of Siberia as anthropologists have long assumed, but out of Southeast Asia across the Pacific into the Americas 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. If this picture is accurate, it makes many American Indians distant cousins of the Polynesians

Between A.D. 1000 and 1100 Polynesian voyagers sailing from Eastern
Polynesia probably reached the west cost of South America. To their surprise, however, the researchers found that native Siberians lack one peculiar mutation that appeared in the Amerinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This raises the question of where, if not from Siberia, this mtDNA originated.

It turns out, Dr. Wallace says, that this particular mutation pattern is also found in aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia and in the islands of *Melanesia and Polynesia*. This hints at what may have been "one of the most astounding migrations in human experience," he says. A group of ancient peoples moved out of China into Malaysia where they became sailors and populated the islands of the South Pacific

---

From that link:
Then some 6,000 to 12,000 years ago these ancient mariners made it to the Americas. "I don't know how they came," Dr. Wallace says. "They either came across the Pacific to Central and South America or they went up the east coast of Asia and across the northern Pacific to Alaska and Canada," he says. He already is examining mtDNA samples from natives of the Kamchatka Peninsula north of Japan to see if there is any mtDNA trace of these ancient sailors.

Allthose links say is that they have the same ancestors. And mariners going the coastal way would not have left remains in siberian populations as their coastal landings are under water.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
A=the "only via Beringia" model; ____ B=the "South Pacific Rim first" model

quote:

---

from:Tom D. Dillehay
Palaeoanthropology: Tracking the first Americans
Nature 425, 23-24 (4 September 2003)


The archaeological and skeletal data have led to a new model,
in which the Palaeoamericans — the proposed first arrivals in
the New World — were not northeast Asians. They came instead
from south Asia and the southern Pacific Rim, and they probably
shared ancestry with ancient Australians and other southern
populations [3, 9]. A second group of humans then arrived from
northeast Asia or Mongolia, and it was this second population
that adapted to the warming climate after the Ice Age and gave
rise to the modern Amerindians (an ancient population of Americans
whose skeletal remains make up most of the human material found
in the New World) and the present-day Native Americans.


3 - Neves, W. A. & Pucciarelli, H. M. J. Hum. Evol. 21, 261−273 (1991).
9 - Neves, W. A. et al. Homo 50, 258−263 (1999).

---

quote:

---

from: a History News Network article (clickable link)

George Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming
and one of the plaintiffs in the Kennewick Man case, said evidence
indicated that seafaring people from southeast Asia or Polynesia
could have reached the Americas by traveling along the Pacific Rim,
landing somewhere in what is now South America.

---

quote:

---

from an article covering the October 1999, Clovis and Beyond Conference on early Americans

Various models on the continental scale attempt to explain, using
the evidence, ways the first people entered the American continent.
One theory has been proposed by CSFA director Rob Bonnichsen, another
by Ruth Gruhn and Alan Bryan of the University of Alberta.

Dr. Bryan's Circum-Pacific model for the colonization of the Americas,
formulated in the '70s and for many years largely ignored by other
authorities, was the first theory that took into account archaeological
information from South America. Now his ideas, bolstered by new data
coming from South America in recent years, truly challenge the Clovis-First
model.

Speaking for himself and absent coauthor Gentry Steele, Dr. Bonnichsen
discussed alternative routes and means that may have been used by people.
"Using small boats along the Pacific Rim of Asia," he argues, the first
people could have come to the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Altakruri writes:
* doesn't use a map and so simply ignores the devastating logic of
direct Oceania to South America voyaging all within tropical latitudes;

---

The scene depicts groups of prehistoric, intrepid mariners moving, *not* out of Siberia as anthropologists have long assumed, but out of Southeast Asia across the Pacific into the Americas 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. If this picture is accurate, it makes many American Indians distant cousins of the Polynesians

Between A.D. 1000 and 1100 Polynesian voyagers sailing from Eastern
Polynesia probably reached the west cost of South America. To their surprise, however, the researchers found that native Siberians lack one peculiar mutation that appeared in the Amerinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This raises the question of where, if not from Siberia, this mtDNA originated.

It turns out, Dr. Wallace says, that this particular mutation pattern is also found in aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia and in the islands of *Melanesia and Polynesia*. This hints at what may have been "one of the most astounding migrations in human experience," he says. A group of ancient peoples moved out of China into Malaysia where they became sailors and populated the islands of the South Pacific

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
A=the "only via Beringia" model; B=the "also the South Pacific Rim" model

quote:

---

from:Tom D. Dillehay
Palaeoanthropology: Tracking the first Americans
Nature 425, 23-24 (4 September 2003)


The archaeological and skeletal data have led to a new model,
in which the Palaeoamericans — the proposed first arrivals in
the New World — were not northeast Asians. They came instead
from south Asia and the southern Pacific Rim, and they probably
shared ancestry with ancient Australians and other southern
populations [3, 9]. A second group of humans then arrived from
northeast Asia or Mongolia, and it was this second population
that adapted to the warming climate after the Ice Age and gave
rise to the modern Amerindians (an ancient population of Americans
whose skeletal remains make up most of the human material found
in the New World) and the present-day Native Americans.


3 - Neves, W. A. & Pucciarelli, H. M. J. Hum. Evol. 21, 261−273 (1991).
9 - Neves, W. A. et al. Homo 50, 258−263 (1999).

---

quote:

---

from: a History News Network article (clickable link)

George Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming
and one of the plaintiffs in the Kennewick Man case, said evidence
indicated that seafaring people from southeast Asia or Polynesia
could have reached the Americas by traveling along the Pacific Rim,
landing somewhere in what is now South America.

---

quote:

---

from an article covering the October 1999, Clovis and Beyond Conference on early Americans

Various models on the continental scale attempt to explain, using
the evidence, ways the first people entered the American continent.
One theory has been proposed by CSFA director Rob Bonnichsen, another
by Ruth Gruhn and Alan Bryan of the University of Alberta.

Dr. Bryan's Circum-Pacific model for the colonization of the Americas,
formulated in the '70s and for many years largely ignored by other
authorities, was the first theory that took into account archaeological
information from South America. Now his ideas, bolstered by new data
coming from South America in recent years, truly challenge the Clovis-First
model.

Speaking for himself and absent coauthor Gentry Steele, Dr. Bonnichsen
discussed alternative routes and means that may have been used by people.
"Using small boats along the Pacific Rim of Asia," he argues, the first
people could have come to the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Altakruri writes: * doesn't use a map and so simply ignores the devastating logic of direct
Oceania to South America voyaging all within tropical latitudes;

---

The scene depicts groups of prehistoric, intrepid mariners moving, *not* out of Siberia as anthropologists have long assumed, but out of Southeast Asia across the Pacific into the Americas 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. If this picture is accurate, it makes many American Indians distant cousins of the Polynesians

Between A.D. 1000 and 1100 Polynesian voyagers sailing from Eastern
Polynesia probably reached the west cost of South America. To their surprise, however, the researchers found that native Siberians lack one peculiar mutation that appeared in the Amerinds 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This raises the question of where, if not from Siberia, this mtDNA originated.

It turns out, Dr. Wallace says, that this particular mutation pattern is also found in aboriginal populations in Southeast Asia and in the islands of *Melanesia and Polynesia*. This hints at what may have been "one of the most astounding migrations in human experience," he says. A group of ancient peoples moved out of China into Malaysia where they became sailors and populated the islands of the South Pacific

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Sidirom [aka Sallassin the banned troll] writes:
All those links say is that they have the same ancestors

---

Altakruri is right, your reading comprehension really stinks.

quote:

---

The scene depicts groups of prehistoric, intrepid mariners moving, *not* out of Siberia as anthropologists have long assumed, but out of Southeast Asia across the Pacific into the Americas 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. If this picture is accurate, it makes many American Indians distant cousins of the Polynesian.

---

These scientists are specifically suggesting possible Pacific Ocean to America migration routes.

As usual, you find a way not to hear anything you don't like, which is why we just ignore your inane trolling.

---

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Agreed.


Inasmuch as the Paleo Americans resemble tropical Africans -and even moreso tropical Melanesian and Black Australian populations.

And according to Neves - they are radically unlike native Siberians - therefore the problems of a purely arctic ancestry, that coincidentally converages on a not merely tropical, but specifically Melanesio-Australian phenotype are difficult to surmount.
 

---

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
 

A coastal route around the North Pacific could have led early explorers to lands later submerged when melting glaciers raised sea levels. The possibility of an Ice Age migration directly across the Pacific is widely discounted, but Polynesians certainly had that capability by 500 A.D., when Hawaii and Easter Island were inhabited.

Peñon Woman was found in Baja California as were the last Pericu lived in Columbus'time as well.

When measuring up and comparing the Pericu skulls, the authors discovered that their owners were not a group of Amerinds like most of the Mexican population since prehistoric times. Instead they had distinct and clear affinities to Southeast Asia and the Pacific rim populations. As such, they would seem to represent another Palaeoamerican population that had lived in isolation for a long time and, moreover, one that had managed to survive until very recently.

The chart below shows that the population most closely related to the Pericu (BCS) by skull measurements are the Lagoa Santa people (PAL) - also known as Lapa Vermelha IV or "Luzia's" people - who lived in Minas Gerais near Belo Horizonte in Brazil around 12,500 years ago.


Results of multivariate analysis of Pericu skulls 1: The principal coordinates represent minimum genetic distances
(chart adapted from Gonzalez-Jose, R. Gonzalez-Martin A., Hernandez M., Pucciarelli H.M., Sardi M., Rosales A. and Van der Molen S. 2003. "Craniometric Evidence for Palaeoamerican survival in Baja California", Nature, 425:62-65; and Th. D. Dillehay. 2003. "Tracking the first Americans", Nature, 425:23-24.
PERICU GROUP (Baja California Sur, Mexico) BCS
Fuegians (Tierra del Fuego, Argenina/Chile) FUEG
Patagonians (Argentina) PATA
Andean Patagonians (Argentina/Chile) APAT
Pampas (Buenos Aires, Argenina) PAM
Delta of Parana (eastern Argentina) DPAR
Aztecs (Mexico) TLAT
Bolivians (Bolivia) BOL
Toba (northeastern Argentina) TOBA
Calchaqui (northwestern Argentina) CAL
Palaeoamericans of Brazil ("Luzia" etc.) PAL
Teita (Kenya, Africa) TEITA
Dogon (Mali, Africa) DOGON
Zulu (South Africa) ZULU
Bushmen (South Africa) BUSH
Australian aborigines (Australia) AUST
Tasmanian aborigines (Tasmania, Australia) TASM
Tolai (Melanesia) TOLAI
Buriats (East Asia) BURIAT
Inuit (Eskimo) (Greenland) ESKI
Yauyos (Peru) PERU
Arikara (USA) ARIK
Ainu (Japan) AINU
North Japanese (Japan) NJAP
South Japanese (Japan) SJAP
Hainan (southern China) HAIN
Anyang (Taiwan) ANYA
Atayal (eastern China) ATAY
Santa Cruz (California, USA) SANT



"Early people might have moved south from the Bering Strait by following a chain of small ice-free areas that existed along the outer Pacific coast," Knut Fladmark, a professor of archaeology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, told me by e-mail. "Many of those areas would now be underwater."

In 1997, Daryl Fedje, an archaeologist with the Canadian parks system, found a stone tool at a site now 160 feet under water off the coast of British Columbia. The artifact, 10,200 years old, shows that people once lived on that submerged land, Fedje says.

Note the northern Jomon.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:


Inasmuch as the Paleo Americans resemble tropical Africans -and even moreso tropical Melanesian and Black Australian populations.

And according to Neves - they are radically unlike native Siberians - therefore the problems of a purely arctic ancestry, that coincidentally converages on a not merely tropical, but specifically Melanesio-Australian phenotype are difficult to surmount.

---

Forensic reconstructions of Black PaleoIndians, based on findings of Anthropologist WAlter Neves:




Reconstruction of Km.t[rm.t]:

http://www.rn-ds-partnership.com/futureface.html

quote:

---

originallly posted by rasol, translation: It eats you alive that Nile Valley Africans referred themselves as Blacks [Km.t]. Unable to refute the message you cry about the messengers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:


Inasmuch as the Paleo Americans resemble tropical Africans -and even moreso tropical Melanesian and Black Australian populations.

And according to Neves - they are radically unlike native Siberians - therefore the problems of a purely arctic ancestry, that coincidentally converages on a not merely tropical, but specifically Melanesio-Australian phenotype are difficult to surmount.

---

Forensic reconstructions of Black PaleoIndians, based on findings of Anthropologist WAlter Neves:




Reconstruction of Km.t[rm.t]:

http://www.rn-ds-partnership.com/futureface.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Without adding soft-tissue features that cannot be determined from the skull alone, you do not have useful reconstruction - the most recent Tut reconstruction was based on European templates for facial thickness and contrived averagings of modern Egyptians for skin color. Such and approach flies in the face of logic and is intrinsically biased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Without adding soft-tissue features that cannot be determined from the skull alone, you do not have useful reconstruction

---

The Manchester Technique, of forenic reconstruction

It is frequently argued that detailed anatomical structures in the substructure of a reconstruction is unnecessary. We would argue that *such substructures are essential* particularly when dealing with cases with congenital deformities or where evidence of trauma is manifest.
RN-DS Partnership - Medical and Forensic Practitioners, Richard Neves:

Kemetic [Ancient Egyptian] Preist, Natsef:

 

---

Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 
^ If the point here, is that reconstructions don't necessarily resemble the visual interpretations of the depicted individuals, then point is taken...particularly for the man, whose nose tip appears more rounded [contrasting the pointed tip of the reconstruction] in the painting, not to mention a somewhat more rounded face. The reconstruction of the woman, isn't as far off, as that of the man. Just goes to show, soft parts, especially the nose, can be quite distinct from the actual thing.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SidiRom:

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Then what do you consider black then?? 'Black' referred solely to color and complexion and there are a great many populations outside of Africa who share the same complexion as black Africans. Which is why they were called black in the first place.

---

quote:

---

The main point here, is that the remains of these early Paleo-Americans are tropical!

---

quote:

---

And isn't it possible for tropically adapted people like Melanesians or Australasians to somehow reach the Americas?
One thing is very clear in regards to the topic of this thread and that tropical features do NOT necessarily indicate recent African ancestry despite what some on this board may say!

---

Fully agree again
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
First I am still disappointed with the negative name calling and overall antagonism found in this forum. We are dealing with very controversial issues and we shouldn't need to lash out at people of having a differing perspective.


As for the discussion of the Olmecs, this reconstruction clearly indicates a socially Black presence in the Americas that is also indicated by archaelogical evidence.



I find it amazing that Kennewick man got so much media attention for being quote "Caucasoid" but Luiza is almost completely ignored! Even though there have been questions surrounding the possible "Blackness" of the Olmecs for decades, now that fossil records support this it is almost completely ignored.

I see Kennewick man on the front page of Time magazine! Where is Luiza?

Should be:

Negritoes found in South America, apparently led to the Olmec Civilization. Front Page story of Time Magazine.
 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
One thing is very clear in regards to the topic of this thread and that tropical features do NOT necessarily indicate recent African ancestry despite what some on this board may say!

---

Doesn't need to be of recent African ancestry to be considered socially Black.


Is Cathy Feeman not socially Black in America?


 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Fuhgeddaboudit. You'll never convince somebody who comes from
a casta society with more than 32 designations covering every
possible outcome of miscegenation between Africans, Indios,
and Europeans that anyone except the stereotypical "true negro"
is black. In casta society to be called black is an insult even
if you really are a bozalo. And the "true negro" will not even
be called black if such a one has money or influence, that one
will be a pardo. (But even worse than that is to be an
unmiscegenated Indio still practicing indigenous culture or
adhering to such norms when residing among the "civilized.")

But all over the world the black American has fostered pride
of blackness amongst both the "black" skinned and the social
black via the symbol of the P A N T H E R.
 

---

Posted by Raugaj (Member # 10480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
First I am still disappointed with the negative name calling and overall antagonism found in this forum. We are dealing with very controversial issues and we shouldn't need to lash out at people of having a differing perspective.

---

But they can't help themselves and complain when i respond.

quote:

---

As for the discussion of the Olmecs, this reconstruction clearly indicates a socially Black presence in the Americas that is also indicated by archaelogical evidence.

---

Socially Black? What is that? That someone will misqualify you? Which social group?


This picture assumes skin color and even lip thick ness.

But even then, those features exist in Native populations.

quote:

---

I find it amazing that Kennewick man got so much media attention for being quote "Caucasoid" but Luiza is almost completely ignored! Even though there have been questions surrounding the possible "Blackness" of the Olmecs for decades, now that fossil records support this it is almost completely ignored.[/quotes]

Doesn't support it at all. It supports Native Americans that are still there.

[quote]I see Kennewick man on the front page of Time magazine! Where is Luiza?

---

It's not in the USA, and it isn't on Native grounds.

quote:

---

Negritoes found in South America, apparently led to the Olmec Civilization. Front Page story of Time Magazine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Doesn't need to be of recent African ancestry to be considered socially Black.
Is Cathy Feeman not socially Black in America?
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raugaj:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Doesn't need to be of recent African ancestry to be considered socially Black.
Is Cathy Feeman not socially Black in America?

---

In the US? Depends on the group. Some would assume her Black others mixed, etc.But that is because here mixed people are classified as Black. That is not the same everywhere. And she looks ambiguous enough to look like a afropean mixture. But a pure aborigine is not always confused as Afro-American Black (Some are).
They are different people. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Question 1) what does it mean to be 'non-african'?

---

quote:

---

Question 2) What does it mean to be asian, european, native american, australian and so forth?

---

quote:

---

Question 3) What does it mean to be African?

---

quote:

---

Question 4) What does it mean to be Black, in and anthropological sense?

---

quote:

---

Question 5) Does anthropology have any value if there are no races?

---

quote:

---

6) Does 'Black' have value - if Black is not a race?

---

quote:

---

7) How is Black defined as a social catagory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
[QB] Fuhgeddaboudit. You'll never convince somebody who comes from
a casta society with more than 32 designations covering every
possible outcome of miscegenation between Africans, Indios,
and Europeans that anyone except the stereotypical "true negro"
is black. In casta society to be called black is an insult even
if you really are a bozalo. And the "true negro" will not even
be called black if such a one has money or influence, that one
will be a pardo. (But even worse than that is to be an
unmiscegenated Indio still practicing indigenous culture or
adhering to such norms when residing among the "civilized.")

---

Typical Afrocentric BS.
Castas have been long dead in most places. Most people use the terms interchangeably. It has to do more with how you are raised.
Two people with the same phenotypes might identify as different things. But to be considered Black on average as for looks, not group, you have to look more African or darker. Many people with no African ancestry wil be called negro if they are the darkest in the groups.

And it depends on the region as well. For example, in Peru, she is Black because she was raised in the Black community

But she could as well have been raised mulata.
Another peruvian with similar African Ancestry was just not seen as Black.

quote:

---

But all over the world the black American has fostered pride of blackness amongst both the "black" skinned and the social black via the symbol of the P A N T H E R.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
That women looks black she does not looked mixed. As for that man he does not look black. Latin America is really more messed up than the U.S.A. I don't see how that women can be anything other than black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raugaj:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
[QB] Fuhgeddaboudit. You'll never convince somebody who comes from
a casta society with more than 32 designations covering every
possible outcome of miscegenation between Africans, Indios,
and Europeans that anyone except the stereotypical "true negro"
is black. In casta society to be called black is an insult even
if you really are a bozalo. And the "true negro" will not even
be called black if such a one has money or influence, that one
will be a pardo. (But even worse than that is to be an
unmiscegenated Indio still practicing indigenous culture or
adhering to such norms when residing among the "civilized.")

---

Typical Afrocentric BS.
Castas have been long dead in most places. Most people use the terms interchangeably. It has to do more with how you are raised.
Two people with the same phenotypes might identify as different things. But to be considered Black on average as for looks, not group, you have to look more African or darker. Many people with no African ancestry wil be called negro if they are the darkest in the groups.

And it depends on the region as well. For example, in Peru, she is Black because she was raised in the Black community

But she could as well have been raised mulata.
Another peruvian with similar African Ancestry was just not seen as Black.

quote:

---

But all over the world the black American has fostered pride of blackness amongst both the "black" skinned and the social black via the symbol of the P A N T H E R.

---

Small groups within a large population. Most Berbers do not see themselves as Black and all berbers are not dark skinned. Most Dalits do not consider themselves Black and are not all dark skinned. And Among the Australians who do consider themselves Black the Panther party isn't that big either. But yes, so long as it empowers them I could care less if there is an Inuit Panther party.

---

code:

---

PERUVIAN SCALE FOR CASTA IMPROVEMENT

MAN     WOMAN        OFFSPRING & DEGREE OF "MIXTURE"
-----   ----------   -------------------------------
White   Negra        Mulato      50% white 50% black 
White   Mulata       Cuarteron   75% white 25% black 
White   Cuarterona   Quinteron   88% white 12% black
White   Quinterona   White       94% white  6% black




PERUVIAN SCALE FOR CASTA RETROGRSSION

MAN     WOMAN         OFFSPRING &   DEGREE OF "MIXTURE"
-----   ----------    ---------------------------------
Negro   Mulata        Zambo         75% black 25% white  
Negro   Zamba         Zambo prieto  88% black 12% white 
Negro   Zamba prieta  Negro         94% black  6% white

---

quote:

---

My name is Jaime Andres, and I am a Peruvian-American. I am a mix of Spanish (and the mix of Moors, Rom, Sephardi, Basque and Catalan that entails that), Quechua, Italian and Bantu/Yoruba from my father's side and English/Gaelic, Australian and Cherokee from my mother's side. So I guess I am just like salsa, a good mix. De que raza soy? La Raza Humana.



Hair Color: Dirty Blonde
Eye Color: Blue

Hobby: Activism/Community Service

Groups or Organizations:
Multi-Ethnic Law Student's Association
Latino Law Student's Association
Black Law Student's Association
Asian Pacific Law Student's Association International Law Society
Alpha Psi Lambda
Mixedfolks.com

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
So you are Middle Eastern correct? You are uncomfortable with the social concept of Black. You fear the taint of being considered Black? Such a loose term istn't it. Keep in mind that both sides of the discussion are right and the term is relative to your social perspective.

---

 

---

Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
 
So the mulatto rejects his history because he is ashamed and fights against those that would bring honor to such history. Sounds rather self-defeating. Actually sounds rather insane.

If you are part Black, like I am, then researching the historical facts about people that are also labeled socially as Black, as some of my Ethiopian heritage is, should bring a sense of honor. Clearly the history of Black people has been muddled by politics, prejudice and ignorance. It is for this reason that many on this forum strive to uncover the truth about people that are Black or "Tropically Adapted".

Clearly in terms of phenotype, the Olmecs were a Black people just like many Australians and many of the Polynesian/Melanesian people are today.

What clearly needs to be discussed is the classification system used by people to describe affiliations to a particular group.

The concept of Black is very controversial but need not be.

Basically to some people to be Black you have to be a "True Negro" specifically from Sub-Saharan Africa. However, to be Caucasian you can be from Northern Japan or anywhere in the world just as long as you have thin lips and a narrow nasal passage. If you have stereotypical Black features but you are not from Sub-Saharan Africa then you are not Black by such a social concept. If you simply have straight hair and stereotypical Black features you are still not Black. Even if you are from Sub-Saharan Africa but do not have stereotypical Black features then you are not Black.

Such a system is defined to limit Blackness to a very specific group of people as if its a curse to be Black.

Such a system is inconsistent to the point of being insane.

If we stuck strictly to phenotype then the Olmecs are Black people and so are many of the Paleo-Asians. If we you have to be African in order to be Black then find, Egyptians, Ethiopians, North East Africans and those that have HLA that are not part of the OOA are Black. Essentially if you have genes that are indigenous to Africa then you are Black regardless of phenotype.

The question really comes down to this. Of the two pictures below, who is actually Black?






Until we can agree on what constitutes Black then we cannot have a discussion about it.

In my opinion both individuals are Black.
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
al Takruri,

There is some truth but as usual, there are those who will deny their grandmother (usually indigena or African).

More Latinos are becoming more accepting of their African origins.
Countries like Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, through the music of reggaeton are beginning to be more 'militant' through music. Even Arabs of African ethnicity are beginning to see the truth, and moreso if they end up in European society.
In USA people can escape their roots by the liberal phenotypic facade of being 'less black?' while European value see the browns as wogs (golliwogs).
Recent cultural exchanges of 'African presence in Mexico" are a sight to behold in the face of denial from the official authorites.

AL Jahiz was right.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Like I said before latin america is a messed up place. I never hear about the black population in Argentina. All I know about the black people in Argentina is that they created the Tango.
 

---

Posted by creolite (Member # 10536) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTaClueless:
He's a product of a Latin American casta society where everyone who can escapes the Negro or Indio label except where they've been touched by the Say It Loud I'm Black And I'm Proud cultural evolution of Black America where colourocracy also reigned just 50 years ago but is now nearly dead.[quote]
What a load of crap. Anyone who actually has a clue of Latin America would know that castas have been long dead and the names are used very ambiguously. Kinda like high-yellow, or other terms. A person might call themselves mulato, negro and zambo. alClueless must be confusing his native Brazil with the rest of Latin America, and even there, the terms are very interchangeable. They descibe basic looks more than anything.

[quote]In his native Peru the idea was to marry white and move your ensuing generations up the social hierarchy:
Notice that in this scheme a white man may take a negra woman but it's inconceivable that a negro man could take a white woman.

---

quote:

---

Pronto su presencia se hizo evidente y la cultura o las culturas africanas formaron parte del proceso del mestizaje americano. Surgieron el mulato, por la mezcla de negro y blanca o a la inversa, y el zambo, que es el híbrido de sangre negra e india.

---

quote:

---

Zambo usually denotes Indio Negro parentage and is used as an euphemism to play down negroness which only applies to the bottom rung of proper society.

---

What hogwash. Many proud Peruvian Blacks also claim Zamboness.

quote:

---

Thank G-d the contest winner in the photo rose above this silliness that still infects many many of African descent all over the Americas who while looking African want to be known for their mixture with a people whom they in no wise resemble as found in their European homeland.

---

quote:

---

So yes, you hit the mark about his source in shame and denial that anyone dare be black which he wrongfully equates as African "true negro".

---

Nice try. I have never claimed an African True negro. But i do know the roots of the word. And contrary to you, I am not ashamed of ANY of my ancestry. I belonged to The Black law Students Association, Latino Law Students Association and even Gaelic.

And it's cute to see you trying to stalk me. Sorry, I'm heterosexual.
 

---

Posted by creolite (Member # 10536) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
[QB] So the mulatto rejects his history because he is ashamed and fights against those that would bring honor to such history.[quote]
A mulato does not reject his history as the very definition of mulato is part Black. If someone calls themselves Indio, it could be (unless they are raised in an indio community. (Just like light skinned Blacks)

[quote]Sounds rather self-defeating. Actually sounds rather insane.

---

quote:

---

If you are part Black, like I am, then researching the historical facts about people that are also labeled socially as Black, as some of my Ethiopian heritage is, should bring a sense of honor.

---

quote:

---

Clearly the history of Black people has been muddled by politics, prejudice and ignorance. It is for this reason that many on this forum strive to uncover the truth about people that are Black or "Tropically Adapted".

---

quote:

---

Clearly in terms of phenotype, the Olmecs were a Black people just like many Australians and many of the Polynesian/Melanesian people are today.

---

quote:

---

What clearly needs to be discussed is the classification system used by people to describe affiliations to a particular group.

---

quote:

---

Basically to some people to be Black you have to be a "True Negro" specifically from Sub-Saharan Africa. However, to be Caucasian you can be from Northern Japan or anywhere in the world just as long as you have thin lips and a narrow nasal passage.

---

quote:

---

If you have stereotypical Black features but you are not from Sub-Saharan Africa then you are not Black by such a social concept. If you simply have straight hair and stereotypical Black features you are still not Black. Even if you are from Sub-Saharan Africa but do not have stereotypical Black features then you are not Black.

---

quote:

---

Such a system is defined to limit Blackness to a very specific group of people as if its a curse to be Black.
Such a system is inconsistent to the point of being insane.

---

quote:

---

If we stuck strictly to phenotype then the Olmecs are Black people and so are many of the Paleo-Asians. If we you have to be African in order to be Black then find, Egyptians, Ethiopians, North East Africans and those that have HLA that are not part of the OOA are Black. Essentially if you have genes that are indigenous to Africa then you are Black regardless of phenotype.

---

quote:

---

The question really comes down to this. Of the two pictures below, who is actually Black?


Until we can agree on what constitutes Black then we cannot have a discussion about it.
In my opinion both individuals are Black.

---

In my opinion it depends on what group they come from and what they identify with. The first might not identify as Black.
The second identifies as an Australian Black by culture. (She is of mixed ancestry)]

Sadly many mixed ancestry children have basically been abducted and raised as White in Australia. Which is another form of one-droppism.
Australian Aborigines refer them as the "Stolen Generation."
 

---

Posted by creolite (Member # 10536) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by yazid904:
There is some truth but as usual, there are those who will deny their grandmother (usually indigena or African).

---

quote:

---

More Latinos are becoming more accepting of their African origins.
Countries like Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, through the music of reggaeton are beginning to be more 'militant' through music. Even Arabs of African ethnicity are beginning to see the truth, and moreso if they end up in European society.
In USA people can escape their roots by the liberal phenotypic facade of being 'less black?' while European value see the browns as wogs (golliwogs).
Recent cultural exchanges of 'African presence in Mexico" are a sight to behold in the face of denial from the official authorites.

---

Yes there is a resurgence of Afro pride which is good, but that does not mean that all will adopt the term Black. Many Afro-Peruanos call themselves that, not Black. Only the darker ones do or the ones raised in the predominant Black populations.

All AfroPeruanos:

Some will identify as negros other won't but they are all proud of their African heritage.
 

---

Posted by creolite (Member # 10536) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Like I said before latin america is a messed up place. I never hear about the black population in Argentina. All I know about the black people in Argentina is that they created the Tango.

---