posted
.Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making. The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .
If you would see the New York Times video you would noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supports her dating of human population in Brazil 100,000 years ago to ancient fire and tool making. Look at the New York Times video: Human’s First Appearance in the Americas @:
If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazil 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.
Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship . You reject this evidence because it proves that Blacks were here before the mongoloids.
It is interesting that it is becoming clear that people may have left Africa 100kya, instead of 60kya to settle the world. This may indicate that Australians made their way to America before the Khoisan.
The new evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Arabia, on Crete and now Brazil around 100,000 years ago suggest that AMH left Africa before 60kya.
We all know that humans originated in Africa over 150,000 years ago. The new evidence suggest five out of Africa (OoA) There were probably four major migration of the Africans into the Pacific. The first migration events. The first people to migrate out of Africa 100-60kya were the Australians. These people demonstrate the physical type associated with the early homo sapien sapiens. The Australians appear to have made their way to every continent. The second migration OoA event was the migration of Khoisan and Bushman people out of Africa 45kya.
Bushman The Khoisan mainly settled Europe and the Americas, instead of Eastern Eurasia.
The third migration was a migration of pgymy type people around 20,000-15,000 BC. These people settle many Indian Ocean Islands, India, and East Asia; they also settle the Americas and all of mainland Eurasia. Remnants of these people are the Munda speakers of India and inhabitants of the Nicobar and Andamen islands. These people made little impact in Oceania which was predominantely still occupied at this time by the Australian type people.
Andaman People
Munda Woman
Tribal People Orissa
The fourth migration was of modern Africans. This migration occurned between 2000-1500 BC. These people spoke languages related to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian groups. They are predominately known as Kushites and spread the use of red-and-black pottery, cattle rearing and millet and yam cultivation to India, Central and East Asia .These Africans also spread a common megalithic culture from Africa to Hawaii. The Fijians were probably part of this group.
The fifth migration took place between 1000-500 BC. This migration resulted from the Hua (contemporary) Chinese defeating the Yin-Shang situated at Anyang, China. These Africans forced out of East Asia and Southeast Asia settle the low land areas of Near Oceania. The lapita artifacts suggest that some of these Africans may have also made their way to Fiji.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first researcher to claim that the PaleoAmericans were Blacks was Dr. W. A. Neves of Brazil. Neves had the PaleoAmerican from Brazil reconstructed. This Black woman is called Luzia.
Using craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods, Dr. Neves determined that Paleo Americans were either Australian, African or Melenesians (Neves , Powell and Ozolins, 1998,1999a,199b; Powell, 2005). The research of Neves indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, paleoamericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC.
Below are articles that say the PaleoAmericans were phenotypically Black. See:
Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1989. Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura, 41: 566–75 Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1990. The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 81: 247. Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1991. Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 21: 261–73. Neves, W. A. and Meyer, D. 1993. The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 16 (Suppl): 150–1. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F., Prous, A. and Ozolins, E. G. 1998. Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26(Suppl): 169. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999a. Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Intercieˆncia, 24: 258–63. Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999b. Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 129–33. Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273. Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268 Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263. http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf Neves, W.A., Gonza´ lez-Jose´ , R., Hubbe, M., Kipnis, R., Araujo, A.G.M., Blasi, O., 2004. Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36, 479-501 Neves, W. A., and M. Hubbe. 2005. Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:18,309–18,314. NYT (New York Times). (2015) Human’s First Appearance in the Americas . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4
Powell,J.F. (2005). First Americans:Races, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press.
Many of the articles of Neves can be found at Academia edu.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Some 12,000 years ago, a teenage girl took a walk in what’s now the Yucatan Peninsula and fell 190 feet into a deep pit, breaking her pelvis and likely killing her instantly. Over time, the pit—part of an elaborate limestone cave system—became a watery grave as the most recent ice age ended, glaciers melted and sea levels rose.
A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Indigenous Australians Ancient Migration Patterns to North America Are Hidden in Languages Spoken Today When Did Humans Come to the Americas? The Clovis Weren’t the First Americans
In 2007, cave divers happened upon her remarkably preserved remains, which form the oldest, most complete and genetically intact human skeleton in the New World. Her bones, according to new research published in Science, hold the key to a question that has long plagued scientists: Who were the first Americans?
Prevailing ideas point to all Native Americans descending from ancient Siberians who moved across the Beringia land bridge between Asia and North America between 26,000 and 18,000 years ago. As time wore on, the thinking goes, these people spread southward and gave rise to the Native American populations encountered by European settlers centuries ago.
The skull of Naia on the floor of Hoyo Negro, as it appeared in December 2011, having rolled into a near-upright position. (Photo by Roberto Chavez Arce)
But therein lies a puzzle: "Modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan… but the oldest American skeletons do not," says archaeologist and paleontologist James Chatters, lead author on the study and the owner of Applied Paleoscience, a research consulting service based in Bothell, Washington.
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."
The newly discovered skeleton—named Naia by the divers who discovered her, after the Greek for water—should help to settle this speculation. Though her skull is shaped like those of other early Americans, she shares a DNA sequence with some modern Native Americans. In other words, she’s likely a genetic great-aunt to indigenous people currently found in the Americas.
New genetic evidence supports the hypothesis that the first people in the Americas all came from northeast Asia by crossing a land bridge known as Beringia. When sea levels rose after the last ice age the land bridge disappeared. (Julie McMahon)
To reach these findings, scientists had to first conclusively determine Naia’s age.
It helped that the cave she was found in—a submerged chamber called “Hoyo Negro” (Spanish for “black hole”) of the Sac Atun cave system, accessible only by divers climbing down a 30-foot ladder in a nearby sinkhole, swimming along a 200-foot tunnel, then making a final 100-foot drop—was littered with fossils of saber-toothed tigers, giant ground sloths, cave bears and even an elephant-like creature called a gomphothere. These creatures last walked on Earth thousands of years ago during the last ice age.
But the researchers needed to get more specific than that. So they took a close look at regional sea-level data to get a minimum age at which the cave filled with seawater. Their analysis showed that the site, which is now 130 feet below sea-level, would have been become submerged between 9,700 and 10,200 years ago. Thus, Naia had to have fallen into the cave before then.
Unlike previous skeletons of early Americans, Naia’s included her teeth. Led by co-author Douglas Kennett, a professor of environmental archaeology at the Pennsylvania State University, researchers radiocarbon-dated her tooth enamel to 12,900 years ago.
But Naia’s exposure to seawater within the limestone caves, however, had mineralized her bones. "Unfortunately, we can't rule out that the tooth enamel is contaminated with secondary carbonates from the cave system,” Kennett explains.
Tooth enamel also contains trace amounts of uranium and thorium, radioactive minerals that decay at known rates. But results from those analyses, while they indicated that the remains were at least 12,000 years old, were also inconclusive.
However the scientists noticed something interesting about the bones themselves: they were spotted with rosette-looking mineral deposits. Before the cave was submerged, water dripping from the cave’s roof created a mineral mist that dried on the bones in floret patterns.
"Because the florets grew on the human bones, we knew that dating them would give us a minimum age for the bones," explains Victor Polyak, a research scientist at the University of New Mexico’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences. "And again, given that Hoyo Negro pit was dry when Naia made her way to the bottom, the florets had to have grown between the time of her death and 10,000 years ago when the bottom of the pit became submerged by brackish water because of rising sea level. Therefore, the oldest pieces of florets provided the oldest minimum age."
Analysis of these florets agreed with other readings—Naia fell into cave no earlier than 12,000 years ago.
The upper right third molar of Naia, which was used for both radiocarbon dating and DNA extraction. The tooth is held by ancient genetics expert Brian Kemp of Washington State University, who led the genetic research on the skeleton. (Photo by James Chatters) Naia’s teeth had another role to play: With her age established, scientists then sought to extract her DNA from her molars. "We tried a DNA extraction on the outside chance some fragments might remain," says Chatters. "I was shocked when we actually got intact DNA."
The researchers focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is used by geneticists to examine how populations are related. mtDNA is more abundant than DNA found in a cell’s nucleus, so it’s easier to study. Researchers focused especially on haplotypes, which are sequences of genes that mutate more slowly than the rest of the mtDNA.
Their analysis showed that Naia’s mtDNA contains a haplotype that occurs in modern Native Americans and only is found in the Americas; scientists believe it evolved in Beringia.
“We were able to identify her genetic lineage with high certainty," says Ripan Malhi, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois. Malhi’s lab was one of three that analyzed Naia’s mtDNA; all three analyses yielded the same results. "This shows that living Native Americans and these ancient remains of the girl we analyzed all came from the same source population during the initial peopling of the Americas."
Naia proves that migrations from Beringia made it to southern Mexico. As for why Naia’s skull is so different from modern Native Americans, co- author Deborah Bolnick, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin has an explanation: “The physical differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans today are more likely due to changes that occurred in Beringia and the Americas over the last 9,000 years.” Bolnick’s lab was one of the three to confirm the mtDNA findings.
Studies of Naia—namely the fact that she’s a genetic forerunner to modern Native Americans—ironically raises some interesting questions about whether scientists will be able to get access and extract the remains of early Americans yet to be uncovered.
For example, Chatters—who discovered the scientific importance of the ~9000-year-old Kennewick Man in 1996—could not further analyze those remains due to local tribes claiming the body as an ancestor under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990. However, in 2004, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a previous decision that ruled that the remains could not be defined as “Native American” under NAGPRA law, and studies of the body resumed.
Naia’s discovery may open the door to more legal struggles in the future. But Chatters dismisses this idea, noting that in the current study, “We’re not looking at an ancestor-descendent relationship here necessarily. We’re simply looking at a common heritage.”
Meanwhile, dive into Hoyo Negro with the project’s cave explorers, courtesy of Mexican government’s National Institute of Anthropology and History and supported by the National Geographic Society:
posted
You can prove the first Americans were Khoisan based on craniometrics and the reconstruction of the first Americans. The Solutrean origin theory for the rise of the first Americans unite the Khoisan of Africa, Europe, and the Americas.
Researchers have found evidence that Solutrean artifacts have been found on North American sites where Paleo-Native Americans have been found. Soutrean is an ancient culture from Europe.This has led some researchers to create the so-called Solutrean hypothesis that proposes that ancient America was settled by ancient Europeans.
The proposed Solutrean migration route seems highly unlikely because these early men would have had to brave glaziers and Ice Age tempertures which would have made it impossible to reach North America.
Although a migration from Europe seems highly unlikely 20-30kya because of the Ice Age. Ancient man could have made their way to the Americas directly from Africa which is a shorter distance to the Americas than Europe, and also ancient sailors could have made their way to the Americas on Currents, especially the Gulf Stream, that regularly flow from Africa, to the Americas.
The first Americans Naia, and Luzia dating to 12,000 BC were Negroes
NAIA of Mexico
LUZIA of Brazil
Archaeologist have reconstructed the faces of ancient Americans from Brazil and Mexico. These faces are based on the skeletal remains dating back to 12,000BC.
Researchers agree that the first Americans, Naia of Mexico, Luzia of Brazil and Kennewick Man, found near the Columbia River in Washington, were all Negroes. This finding is not so significant because the first Europeans were also Blacks.
It appears that the first Europeans entered Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. These people were Khoisan. The Khoisan took their art and culture to Europe 40kya. Here they contructed the Aurignacian, Grimaldi and Solutrean cultures. Since the first Europeans had come from North Africa, we also find a Solutrean culture in Africa.
Africa is closer to the Americas than Europe. As you can notice from the map above the Currents could have easily carried the Khoisan from Africa to the Americas. This view is supported by the face that most ancient archaeological sites of paleo-Indian habitation are nearer to the Atlantic Ocean, than the Pacific.
In addition in Africa we find the Dafuna boat. The Dafuna boat has been dated to 8000 B.C., the culture associated with the people who built the Dafuna boat date back to 12,000 BC. This would indicate that around the time Kennewick man, Naia and Luzia inhabited the Americas, Khoisan in Africa had the naval technology to have sailed to the Americas.
In summary , the Solutrean artifacts in the Americas probably relate to Khoisan from Africa sailing to America. The fact that these ancient people in Europe, Africa and the Americas indicate that for a considerable period of time the world was dominated by Black or Negro people.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
In summary , the Solutrean artifacts in the Americas probably relate to Khoisan from Africa sailing to America. The fact that these ancient people in Europe, Africa and the Americas indicate that for a considerable period of time the world was dominated by Black or Negro people.
Many of these black people transformed into light skinned people, many residing in the Northern hemisphere
Others have dark skin but are otherwise not phenotypically Negro
Also genetic Negritude trumps phenotypic Negritude
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas
Pontus Skoglund, Swapan Mallick,Maria Cátira Bortolini,Niru Chennagiri,Tábita Hünemeier, Maria Luiza Petzl-Erler,Francisco Mauro Salzano,Nick Patterson & David Reich
Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America1, 2, 3, 4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)5, 6, 7, 8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted.
In summary , the Solutrean artifacts in the Americas probably relate to Khoisan from Africa sailing to America. The fact that these ancient people in Europe, Africa and the Americas indicate that for a considerable period of time the world was dominated by Black or Negro people.
Many of these black people transformed into light skinned people, many residing in the Northern hemisphere
Others have dark skin but are otherwise not phenotypically Negro
Also genetic Negritude trumps phenotypic Negritude
They did not change into light skin Native Americans, the change occured when Black Native Americans mated with mongoloid Native Americans.
The Xingu have probably mixed with recent Africans settled in Brazil since slavery.
Genetic Negritude can not trump phenotypic Negritude, because mankind originated in Africa and everybody carries African genes, but everybody do not have African phenotypical features. .
In summary , the Solutrean artifacts in the Americas probably relate to Khoisan from Africa sailing to America. The fact that these ancient people in Europe, Africa and the Americas indicate that for a considerable period of time the world was dominated by Black or Negro people.
Many of these black people transformed into light skinned people, many residing in the Northern hemisphere
Others have dark skin but are otherwise not phenotypically Negro
Also genetic Negritude trumps phenotypic Negritude
They did not change into light skin Native Americans, the change occured when Black Native Americans mated with mongoloid Native Americans.
.
Clyde, stop making up stuff, Mongoloids and Caucasoids are former Negroids, they transformed This mixing thing in the Americas you simply made up
^^^ Here is a broad featured Yanomami girl from very isolated regions in the Amazon rainforest, same thing wit the Xingu girls you posted. Their ancestors are Paleoamericans
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
In summary , the Solutrean artifacts in the Americas probably relate to Khoisan from Africa sailing to America. The fact that these ancient people in Europe, Africa and the Americas indicate that for a considerable period of time the world was dominated by Black or Negro people.
Many of these black people transformed into light skinned people, many residing in the Northern hemisphere
Others have dark skin but are otherwise not phenotypically Negro
Also genetic Negritude trumps phenotypic Negritude
They did not change into light skin Native Americans, the change occured when Black Native Americans mated with mongoloid Native Americans.
.
Clyde, stop making up stuff, Mongoloids and Caucasoids are former Negroids, they transformed This mixing thing in the Americas you simply made up
^^^ Here is a broad featured Yanomami girl from very isolated regions in the Amazon rainforest
I don't make up stuff.
She is broadfaced because her ancestors mixed with either African slaves or the Anu (pgymies) that dominated the Amazon region by the time the mongoloid people had migrated to America from Siberia.
Look at the Xingu, you posted one man with African features the rest of the tribe looks Mongoliod like their Siberian ancestors.
posted
The Genetc evidence emerging is that TWO populations settled in the Americas .
The so called "mongoloids" as Dr Winters put it undoubtedly came from the North /Siberia . The "Negroid" Australian /Polynesians apparently came through the south . The perplexing thing is HOW ? There is too much open Ocean!!!
We see the same phenomenon in other places . Were Navigation technology that advanced 50,000 ya or was there land masses that is now submerged?
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde you never heard of black Mongoloids?
Black Caucasian , black mongoloids and white Negros .
Will you people stop...!!!! Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Genetc evidence emerging is that TWO populations settled in the Americas .
The so called "mongoloids" as Dr Winters put it undoubtedly came from the North /Siberia . The "Negroid" Australian /Polynesians apparently came through the south . The perplexing thing is HOW ? There is too much open Ocean!!!
We see the same phenomenon in other places . Were Navigation technology that advanced 50,000 ya or was there land masses that is now submerged?
They probably came by boat. If African artifacts are found in Brazil dating to 100,000 years ago they had to have come by boat.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Genetc evidence emerging is that TWO populations settled in the Americas .
The so called "mongoloids" as Dr Winters put it undoubtedly came from the North /Siberia . The "Negroid" Australian /Polynesians apparently came through the south . The perplexing thing is HOW ? There is too much open Ocean!!!
We see the same phenomenon in other places . Were Navigation technology that advanced 50,000 ya or was there land masses that is now submerged?
They probably came by boat. If African artifacts are found in Brazil dating to 100,000 years ago they had to have come by boat.
.
Exactly what kind of boat would that have been? Nobody had boats 1000 000 years ago., rafts yes. Exactly what route would a raft with no sails filled with Khoisan take to the New World?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: The Genetc evidence emerging is that TWO populations settled in the Americas .
The so called "mongoloids" as Dr Winters put it undoubtedly came from the North /Siberia . The "Negroid" Australian /Polynesians apparently came through the south . The perplexing thing is HOW ? There is too much open Ocean!!!
We see the same phenomenon in other places . Were Navigation technology that advanced 50,000 ya or was there land masses that is now submerged?
They probably came by boat. If African artifacts are found in Brazil dating to 100,000 years ago they had to have come by boat.
.
Exactly what kind of boat would that have been? Nobody had boats 1000 000 years ago., rafts yes. Exactly what route would a raft with no sails filled with Khoisan take to the New World?
This is your opinion. The discovery of African tool kits in Brazil and Crete dating around 100kya indicate that ancient Africans had boats, because they could not have travel too these areas without boats.
This is just another one of your white supremacist ideas. Bernardo you feel that if whites did not have this or that technology, at this on that time nobody else had the technology. This is racism.
The craniometrics and tool kits show an African presence in far away places 100,000 years ago, i.e., Arabia, Crete and Brazil, they couldn't have floated to these locations so the people had boats not rafts.
Africans probably early created boats to sail the numerous Mega-lakes which formerly existed in Africa. Take MegaChad at its prime 15kya, the lake was 350,000km . This Lake was larger than the distance between Africa and Brazil which is 9,382km.
Look at the river connecting MegaChad and MegaCongo we can imagine that if people communicated between these distant places they would have used boats, not rafts. Moreover, traveling these great distance would have called for the sailors to probably get use to gathering foods and supplies for the long voyages just between towns along the MegaChad and MegaCongo Lakes.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The world’s oldest surviving boat is a simple 10 feet (3 metre) long dugout (logboat) dated to 7400 BC. It was discovered in Pesse, Holland in the Netherlands.
Controversy surrounds the Pesse boat, while some archaeologist claim it is a boat, others say it may have been an animal feeder.
This is in sharp contrast to the Dafuna boat from Nigeria that is alledgedly 6000 years old.
As you can see this is an undisputed boat. The culture associated with this boat existed 14kya,
The Dafuna boat and boat engravings throughout the Sahara and Sahel highlight the naval technology of Africans, and suggest a corresponding naval sciences.
posted
On Crete, New Evidence of Very Ancient Mariners
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORDFEB. 15, 2010 Photo
HARDWARE Stone tools found on Crete are evidence of early sea voyages. Credit Nicholas Thompson and Chad DiGregorio
Early humans, possibly even prehuman ancestors, appear to have been going to sea much longer than anyone had ever suspected.
That is the startling implication of discoveries made the last two summers on the Greek island of Crete. Stone tools found there, archaeologists say, are at least 130,000 years old, which is considered strong evidence for the earliest known seafaring in the Mediterranean and cause for rethinking the maritime capabilities of prehuman cultures.
Crete has been an island for more than five million years, meaning that the toolmakers must have arrived by boat. So this seems to push the history of Mediterranean voyaging back more than 100,000 years, specialists in Stone Age archaeology say. Previous artifact discoveries had shown people reaching Cyprus, a few other Greek islands and possibly Sardinia no earlier than 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.
The oldest established early marine travel anywhere was the sea-crossing migration of anatomically modern Homo sapiens to Australia, beginning about 60,000 years ago. There is also a suggestive trickle of evidence, notably the skeletons and artifacts on the Indonesian island of Flores, of more ancient hominids making their way by water to new habitats.
Even more intriguing, the archaeologists who found the tools on Crete noted that the style of the hand axes suggested that they could be up to 700,000 years old. That may be a stretch, they conceded, but the tools resemble artifacts from the stone technology known as Acheulean, which originated with prehuman populations in Africa.
More than 2,000 stone artifacts, including the hand axes, were collected on the southwestern shore of Crete, near the town of Plakias, by a team led by Thomas F. Strasser and Eleni Panagopoulou. She is with the Greek Ministry of Culture and he is an associate professor of art history at Providence College in Rhode Island. They were assisted by Greek and American geologists and archaeologists, including Curtis Runnels of Boston University.
Dr. Strasser described the discovery last month at a meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. A formal report has been accepted for publication in Hesparia, the journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, a supporter of the fieldwork.
The Plakias survey team went in looking for material remains of more recent artisans, nothing older than 11,000 years. Such artifacts would have been blades, spear points and arrowheads typical of Mesolithic and Neolithic periods.
“We found those, then we found the hand axes,” Dr. Strasser said last week in an interview, and that sent the team into deeper time.
“We were flummoxed,” Dr. Runnels said in an interview. “These things were just not supposed to be there.”
Word of the find is circulating among the ranks of Stone Age scholars. The few who have seen the data and some pictures — most of the tools reside in Athens — said they were excited and cautiously impressed. The research, if confirmed by further study, scrambles timetables of technological development and textbook accounts of human and prehuman mobility.
Ofer Bar-Yosef, an authority on Stone Age archaeology at Harvard, said the significance of the find would depend on the dating of the site. “Once the investigators provide the dates,” he said in an e-mail message, “we will have a better understanding of the importance of the discovery.”
Dr. Bar-Yosef said he had seen only a few photographs of the Cretan tools. The forms can only indicate a possible age, he said, but “handling the artifacts may provide a different impression.” And dating, he said, would tell the tale. Dr. Runnels, who has 30 years’ experience in Stone Age research, said that an analysis by him and three geologists “left not much doubt of the age of the site, and the tools must be even older.”
The cliffs and caves above the shore, the researchers said, have been uplifted by tectonic forces where the African plate goes under and pushes up the European plate. The exposed uplifted layers represent the sequence of geologic periods that have been well studied and dated, in some cases correlated to established dates of glacial and interglacial periods of the most recent ice age. In addition, the team analyzed the layer bearing the tools and determined that the soil had been on the surface 130,000 to 190,000 years ago.
Dr. Runnels said he considered this a minimum age for the tools themselves. They include not only quartz hand axes, but also cleavers and scrapers, all of which are in the Acheulean style. The tools could have been made millenniums before they became, as it were, frozen in time in the Cretan cliffs, the archaeologists said.
Dr. Runnels suggested that the tools could be at least twice as old as the geologic layers. Dr. Strasser said they could be as much as 700,000 years old. Further explorations are planned this summer. The 130,000-year date would put the discovery in a time when Homo sapiens had already evolved in Africa, sometime after 200,000 years ago. Their presence in Europe did not become apparent until about 50,000 years ago.
Archaeologists can only speculate about who the toolmakers were. One hundred and thirty thousand years ago, modern humans shared the world with other hominids, like Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis. The Acheulean culture is thought to have started with Homo erectus.
The standard hypothesis had been that Acheulean toolmakers reached Europe and Asia via the Middle East, passing mainly through what is now Turkey into the Balkans. The new finds suggest that their dispersals were not confined to land routes. They may lend credibility to proposals of migrations from Africa across the Strait of Gibraltar to Spain. Crete’s southern shore where the tools were found is 200 miles from North Africa.
“We can’t say the toolmakers came 200 miles from Libya,” Dr. Strasser said. “If you’re on a raft, that’s a long voyage, but they might have come from the European mainland by way of shorter crossings through Greek islands.” But archaeologists and experts on early nautical history said the discovery appeared to show that these surprisingly ancient mariners had craft sturdier and more reliable than rafts. They also must have had the cognitive ability to conceive and carry out repeated water crossing over great distances in order to establish sustainable populations producing an abundance of stone artifacts.
posted
100,000-year-old human settlement in U.A.E. overturns what we know of our evolution
Alasdair Wilkins
Filed to: EVOLUTION 1/27/11 5:21pm
100,000-year-old human settlement in U.A.E. overturns what we know of our evolution
Human artifacts recently discovered in the United Arab Emirates date back at least 100,000 years, which means our ancestors might have left Africa up to 125,000 years ago...twice as long ago as previously thought. What's going on here?
The tools discovered during an excavation in the U.A.E., located in the southeastern part of the Arabian peninsula, have been reliably dated to 100,000 years ago. Genetic evidence has suggested modern humans did not leave Africa until about 60,000 years ago, but these tools appear to be the work of our ancestors and not other hominids like Neanderthals.
If they are the work of our ancestors, then they've been found outside Africa at least 40,000 years ahead of schedule. But, as the paleontologists behind this discovery are quick to point out, the 60,000 year figure is one based on only one strand of evidence, and that's genetic data. It's a useful tool, to be sure, but using genetics to reconstruct a species's history can be tricky - genetic data once said domestic dogs were 120,000 years old, but more recent evidence has shown they're actually much closer to 20,000 instead.
This find is one of the first major archaeological discoveries that seems to place anatomically modern humans out of Africa - but, helpfully, still close to Africa, so it's a bit easier to reconstruct their path and timing of migration. That automatically makes this an intriguing find, although we can't instantly dismiss the old 60,000 years figure. This is an extraordinary claim and, as one of the best scientific maxims points out, it requires extraordinary evidence.
Well, I can't guarantee their evidence is sufficiently extraordinary, but at a press conference yesterday the researchers involved did lay out some compelling reasons to believe the basics of the find - that modern humans lived in Arabia 100,000 years ago - even if they were reluctant to discuss the wider implications.
They answered a number of questions one might have about this discovery, so let's dive in:
How do we know anatomically modern humans made these tools?
Paleontologist Tony Marks explains how they identified the likely makers of these tools, which were classified assemblage C:
"There were two possibilities for assemblage C. First, that it was made by local people who'd been there for a long time and who would have left similar artifacts around the landscape. Or second, it was made by people moving into the area. Since assemblage C was 120,000 years old, we looked at what was in southeastern Arabia at that time, there was literally nothing. Long before 120,000 in western Arabia there was what we call the Acheulean, but it had disappeared about a half million years ago, leaving a 400,000 year gap between it and assemblage C. Thus it seemed that assemblage C was made by people coming from somewhere outside southern Arabia, either from the north or from the west.
"A comparison of contemporaneous Paleolithic assemblages from the north showed they totally lacked the bifacial tool production found at assemblage C. Their technique was quite different. Thus, they were unrelated. In east Africa, however, there were contemporaneous Paleolithic assemblages that not only used bifacial techniques to make some of their tools, but also used the other two techniques, blade production and radial (levaloir). An origin in east Africa for assemblage C people therefore was most plausible based on the stone tools and how they were made."
posted
Wilford wrote: "But archaeologists and experts on early nautical history said the discovery appeared to show that these surprisingly ancient mariners had craft sturdier and more reliable than rafts. They also must have had the cognitive ability to conceive and carry out repeated water crossing over great distances in order to establish sustainable populations producing an abundance of stone artifacts".
This idea that "ancient mariners had craft sturdier and more reliable than rafts", supports not only Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago, it also supports the idea Africans had boats 100kya. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters: "The world’s oldest surviving boat is a simple 10 feet (3 metre) long dugout (logboat) dated to 7400 BC. It was discovered in Pesse, Holland in the Netherlands. "
This type of logboat is still used in marshlands in Finland, it is a pulku sledboat, its the forerunner of the childrens red plastic sledboats for sliding down snowy hills. Like other open boats, it was also used as a trough, a bathtub, a shelter, as needed.
The advantage of a linear logboat or later planked canoe over the ancient coracle was much faster propulsion, the disadvantage was less volume space for cargo and less buoyancy.
These ladies are (partly) descended from the original Jomon pygmies that settled Okinawa in coracles, which they inverted as koropokguru/round pit houses shingled with overlapping butterbur leaves, just as Congo pygmy women construct their dome huts of overlapping mongongo leaves.
The Ama enter a trance, dive-forage for sea urchins, then warm up at a big fire.
The AmerIndian women of Tierra Del Fuego, Argentina used bark canoes, their male partner would stay aboard keeping a fire lit.
Tasmanian women divers also dive-foraged for seafoods.
All of these women dove in cold water and carried a flat paddle/spatula/sword to scrape abalones, oysters off rocks, and repel sharks. (A sword slashes through water, a stick or stone doesn't)
I think the first iron tools were made by Japanese Ama divers, from ochre powder sprinkled on (greased/glued/wetted?) flat wood and baked into a thin iron foil, repeatedly, finally evolving into the modern Japanese samurai sword. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KatanaPosts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Dr. Winters, they floated in coracles, just as they did enroute to Queensland Australia, Okinawa Japan, Andamans etc.
Coracles precede all other watercraft, being inverted handwoven dome huts.
Mongolu(Mbuti) dome hut = Moon hut / shell Harigolu(India) coracle, bowl boat = Solar b.Ark / hull
I can not debate the use of Coracles. But I would thinks that a dugout canoe made from a log would have been easier to make than a Coracle that could carry several passengers, an issue you discuss above.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Researchers have also reconstructed reconstructed another PaleoAmerican called Naia.
You can no longer claim that this 12,000 year-represents some kind of Australian, Melanesian ,or African early settler. She is mtDNA D1 one of the founding haplotypes for Native Americans. See
Chatters, J.C. et al 2014 “Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans,” [u]Science [/u]344:6750-754
[QUOTE]Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Researchers have also reconstructed reconstructed another PaleoAmerican called Naia.
You can no longer claim that this 12,000 year-represents some kind of Australian, Melanesian ,or African early settler. She is mtDNA D1 one of the founding haplotypes for Native Americans. See
Chatters, J.C. et al 2014 “Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans,” [u]Science [/u]344:6750-754
[QUOTE]Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.
Bernard ortiz de Montellano you are a racist. Montellano because you are a white supremacist you are putting words in Dr. Critters mouth so you can pretend the PaleoAmerican craniofacial is the same as modern Native Americans you know this is false, yet you tell this line. In the Smithsonian Magazine according to Dr. Critters, Naia was phenotypically Black.
Mohi Kumar wrote :The skull of Naia on the floor of Hoyo Negro, as it appeared in December 2011, having rolled into a near-upright position.
But therein lies a puzzle: "Modern Native Americans closely resemble people of China, Korea, and Japan… but the oldest American skeletons do not," says archaeologist and paleontologist James Chatters, lead author on the study and the owner of Applied Paleoscience, a research consulting service based in Bothell, Washington.
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."
The newly discovered skeleton—named Naia by the divers who discovered her, after the Greek for water—should help to settle this speculation. Though her skull is shaped like those of other early Americans, she shares a DNA sequence with some modern Native Americans. In other words, she’s likely a genetic great-aunt to indigenous people currently found in the Americas.
New genetic evidence supports the hypothesis that the first people in the Americas all came from northeast Asia by crossing a land bridge known as Beringia. When sea levels rose after the last ice age the land bridge disappeared. (Julie McMahon)
Bernard ortiz de Montellano you are the face of the new white supremacy. Racist Montellano, even when the evidence does not support your erasure of blacks from Ancient America you continue to lie, knowing your ilk will be blind to the truth to maintain your racist ideas about Blacks.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racist Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wants us to believe that since Naia is suppose to be carrying haplogroup D, she is a modern Mongoloid Native American eventhough her cranifacial morphology is Australian, Melanesia or African.
We don;t really know if Naia is a carrier of haplogroup D, instead of M, which is a common haplogroup in Africa. Prufer and Meyer in a : Comment on “Late Pleistocene human skeleton and mtDNA link Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans”, claim Naia's DNA is contaminated. Prufer and Mayer (2015) believe that due to post mortem damage Naia’s DNA was contaminated and does not represent ancient DNA. They said: However, our analysis of postmortem damage patterns finds no evidence for an ancient origin of these sequences. "
White Supremacist like Bernard Ortiz Montellano , know that researchers believe that Naia's DNA is probably contaminated , but rather than tell the truth racist Bernard Montellano tells a white lie to deny that the PaleoAmericans were negroes.
Shame on you, racist Bernard Ortiz de Montellano. Bernard you should know that it is racist for someone to spread a lie about members of a different race, when they know the research does not support their racist claims.Stop stealing the history of the Black Native Americans.
posted
Clyde are you really suggesting that it's white supremacy to say that modern Native Americans might have an ancestral link to ancient Native Americans?
And where are the nappy haired descendant of Paleoamericans anywhere in the Americas today?
They went extinct?
When Clyde? When ?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Clyde are you really suggesting that it's white supremacy to say that modern Native Americans might have an ancestral link to ancient Native Americans?
And where are the nappy haired descendant of Paleoamericans anywhere in the Americas today?
They went extinct?
When Clyde? When ?
Yes it is racist. Racism is the the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Whites claim that if you say that any of the Four River Valley Civilizations and the Olmecs were Black you are racist, so if you claim the PaleoAmericans were not phenotypically Negro, when every researcher says they were you are racist.
Bernard Ortiz Montellano is racist, also, because he claims Blacks were too inferior to reach America in ancient times when their is craniometric, archaeological and linguistic evidence supporting their PreColumbian presence.
lioness you are also a racist. Black people have curly to straight hair. You keep talking about "nappy hair", as if this is a characteristic of Black people, which it is not. Your claim that Black people are characterized by nappy hair shows that you are a racist and definitely not Black, a fact we already knew.
Saying someone has nappy hair is an insult. This is an insult, to Afro-Americans because you have nappy hair when it is unkept. As a result, Black people since prehistoric times have made combs to keep their hair neat plus they used oils to keep it nutrient rich.
So Black people love to wear their hair long, others wear it short. Some like to wear it long in an Afro, some slick it down with oil,while others just make a few braids, in either case it is not nappy.
Your so-called nappy headed Indians never went extinct they live in the Afro-American community. It is only in your mind's eye, created by viewing cowboy and indian movies, that you believe that the only Native Americans were mongoloid. Racist lioness, stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Saying someone has nappy hair is an insult. This is an insult, to Afro-Americans because you have nappy hair when it is unkept. As a result, Black people since prehistoric times have made combs to keep their hair neat plus they used oils to keep it nutrient rich.
No, that USED to be the case!
Now, like so many other things, our mindless young Niggers have decided to change that too.
I constantly see young Black boys who have never touched their heads with oil or a brush. Yet their worthless mothers have weaves down to their asses.
These dumb-assed Niggers equate grooming with Albinos, so in their defective minds, Black means NOT grooming.
Of course, not only are they brain defective, they also don't know history: the dumb asses don't know that Black people taught the Albino everything, including how to groom himself.
.
If you are an Albino out in the middle of nowhere, then this is fine.
Otherwise, you might want to groom yourself.
.
If you are a San bushman out in the middle of nowhere, then this is fine.
Otherwise, you really need to learn how to groom yourself - dumb nigger.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: You can prove the first Americans were Khoisan based on craniometrics and the reconstruction of the first Americans. The Solutrean origin theory for the rise of the first Americans unite the Khoisan of Africa, Europe, and the Americas.
The first Americans Naia, and Luzia dating to 12,000 BC were Negroes
NAIA of Mexico
Genotype trumps phenotyype Naia is mtDNA =D1 see
Chatters, J.C. et al 2014 “Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans,” [u]Science [/u]344:6750-754
quote:Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.
quote:
LUZIA of Brazil
Archaeologist have reconstructed the faces of ancient Americans from Brazil and Mexico. These faces are based on the skeletal remains dating back to 12,000BC.
Two recent articles dispute this claim:
The first one, flatly denies a possible direct influx of Australo-Melanesians [or Africans for that matter]; on the basis of both genomic and morphological data.
Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,” sciencemag.org/content/early/recent /23 July 2015 / Page 1-20 / 10.1126/science.aab3884
quote: More importantly, our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian populations (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results, that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies. . . . . . Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
The second second agrees on the basis of genetics that the Polynesian characteristics were present before in the population before they came over the Bering Strait.
Skoglund, P. et al 2015 “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas,” Nature doi:10.1038/nature14895.
quote:However, we do find that a model where Amazonians receive ancestry from the lineage leading to the Andamanese fits the data in the sense that the predicted f4-statistics are all within two standard errors of statistics computed on the empirical data (Extended Data Figs 6 and 7 and Extended Data Table 3). These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas.
quote:Researchers agree that the first Americans, Naia of Mexico, Luzia of Brazil and Kennewick Man, found near the Columbia River in Washington, were all Negroes. This finding is not so significant because the first Europeans were also Blacks.
Exactly backwards, researchers do not agree that these three were "black" if by this you mean Melanesian or African. They are mostly similarly to modern Native Americans (mongoloids?) than to any other population on earth. see
Rasmussen, M. et al. 2015 “The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man” Nature 523 : 455-458
quote:ubsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans2 . In order to resolve Kennewick Man’s ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ~1x coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide. Among the Native American groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of Kennewick Man, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man. We revisit the cranial analyses and find that, as opposed to genome-wide comparisons, it is not possible on that basis to affiliate Kennewick Man to specific contemporary groups. We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.
Genotype always trumps phenotype or morphology.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans2 . In order to resolve Kennewick Man’s ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to ~1x coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide. Among the Native American groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of Kennewick Man, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man. We revisit the cranial analyses and find that, as opposed to genome-wide comparisons, it is not possible on that basis to affiliate Kennewick Man to specific contemporary groups. We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.
Genotype always trumps phenotype or morphology.
Genotype
1. the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms with reference to a single trait, set of traits, or an entire complex of traits. 2. the sum total of genes transmitted from parent to offspring.
Phenotype
1. the observable constitution of an organism. 2. the appearance of an organism resulting from the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
Morphology
1. the branch of biology dealing with the form and structure of organisms.
Kennewick Man
Mtdna = X2a Y-dna = Q-M3
Quote: When we compare Kennewick Man with the worldwide panel of populations, a clear genetic similarity to Native Americans is observed both in principal components analysis (PCA) and using f3-outgroup statistics (Fig. 1a, b). In particular, we can reject the hypothesis that Kennewick Man is more closely related to Ainu or Polynesians than he is to Native Americans, as seen in a D-statistic-based test where no trees of the type ((CHB,Ainu/Polynesian),(X,Karitiana)) with X being Kennewick Man, the Clovis age Anzick-1 child (ref. 12) or a modern Native American genome are rejected (Extended Data Fig. 3). Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE24 shows that Kennewick Man has ancestry proportions most similar to those of other Northern Native Americans (Fig. 1c and Supplementary Information 7), especially the Colville, Ojibwa, and Algonquin.
Considering the Americas only, f3-outgroup and D-statistic based analyses show that Kennewick Man, like the Anzick-1 child, shares a high degree of ancestry with Native Americans from Central and South America, and that Kennewick Man also groups with geographically close tribes including the Colville (Fig. 2a, b and Extended Data Fig. 4). Despite this similarity, Anzick-1 and Kennewick Man have dissimilar genetic affinities to contemporary Native Americans. In particular, we find that Anzick-1 is more closely related to Central/Southern Native Americans than is Kennewick Man (Extended Data Fig. 5). The pattern observed in Kennewick Man is mirrored in the Colville, who also show a high affinity with Southern populations (Fig. 2c), but are most closely related to a neighbouring population in the data set (Stswecem’c; Extended Data Fig. 4c). This is in contrast to other populations such as the Chipewyan, who are more closely related to Northern Native Americans rather than to Central/Southern Native Americans in all comparisons (Fig. 2d and Extended Data Fig. 4d).
posted
Stop lying Bernard Ortiz de Motellano you are a white supremacist and racist. You bring here lies to deny the history of the Black Native Americans.
Racist Montellano genotype and craniometrics complement each other. The fact remains that Naia's DNA was contaminated and Kennewick man carries the African haplogroup X. Moreover Kennewick man is more related to Africans, Andamanese and Melanesians, rather than mongoloid Native Americans craniometrically and genetically.
Racist Montellano you should read the Kennewick Man DNA article before you wrote the garbage herein. Kennewick is recognized as a PaleoAmerican therefore he has negro ancestry. The researchers claim the Kennewick man’s DNA is mainly related to Native Americans living in South America, rather than North America except for the Colville people on the West Coast. The researchers wrote
quote: “Despite this similarity, Anzick-1 and Kennewick Man have dissimilar genetic affinities to contemporary Native Americans. In particular, we find that Anzick-1 is more closely related to Central/Southern Native Americans than is Kennewick Man (Extended Data Fig. 5). The pattern observed in Kennewick Man is mirrored in the Colville, who also show a high affinity with Southern populations (Fig. 2c), but are most closely related to a neighbouring population in the data set (Stswecem’c; Extended Data Fig. 4c).”
The authors also noted that:
“However, the genetic affinities of Kennewick Man reveal additional complexity in the population history of the Northern lineage. The finding that Kennewick is more closely related to Southern than many Northern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4) suggests the presence of an additional Northern lineage that diverged from the common ancestral population of Anzick-1 and Southern Native Americans (Fig. 3). This branch would include both Colville and other tribes of the Pacific Northwest such as the Stswecem’c, who also appear symmetric to Kennewick with Southern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4).”
The Pacific coast were a mixture of mongoloid and Pacific Island negro Native Americans.
The Colville tribe which is related to Kennewick man is a Confederation of Indians who did not die of diseases or murdered by whites so they could take their land.
The Colville tribe is the name given to various Christian Native American tribes that lived at Fort Colville. They include Native American groups that were not exterminated by the whites. The twelve bands are the Methow, Okanogan, Arrow Lakes, Sanpoil, Colville, Nespelem, Chelan, Entiat, Moses-Columbia, Wenatchi, Nez Perce, and Palus. These remnants of Pacific coast tribes formerly mixed with the Black Native Americans this is obvious when we look at Ohlone people who lived in missions on the West Coast.
This means that the Colville tribe is admixed with the Black Native American tribes that formerly dominated the Pacific coast.
The authors like most Europeans attempt to lie about the negro origin of Kennewick man, the multivariate analysis of Kennewick man’s skull does not support their conclusion. The carniometric measurements also confirm the negro origin of Kenewick man. The researchers wrote:
quote: Although our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.
Arikara
Kennewick man carried mtDNA haplogroup X, this haplogroup is rare among United States Indians. This haplogroup is carried by Africans.
Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times. This transference is supported by the haplogroups carried by Kennewick man.
Racist Bernard Ortiz Montellano your white supremacist ideas about the inability of Blacks to travel to America will not be accepted here. Racist Montellano stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Bernard ortiz de Montellano you are a racist. Montellano because you are a white supremacist you are putting words in Dr. Critters mouth so you can pretend the PaleoAmerican craniofacial is the same as modern Native Americans you know this is false, yet you tell this line. In the Smithsonian Magazine according to Dr. Critters, Naia was phenotypically Black.
Sloppy work. His name is Chatters not Critters.
quote:Bernard ortiz de Montellano you are the face of the new white supremacy. Racist Montellano, even when the evidence does not support your erasure of blacks from Ancient America you continue to lie, knowing your ilk will be blind to the truth to maintain your racist ideas about Blacks.
Does anyone on this forum ever look up and read Winters' citations. He is a master of cherry picking and misquotations. Winters says
quote:Naia’s teeth had another role to play: With her age established, scientists then sought to extract her DNA from her molars. "We tried a DNA extraction on the outside chance some fragments might remain," says Chatters. "I was shocked when we actually got intact DNA." The researchers focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is used by geneticists to examine how populations are related. mtDNA is more abundant than DNA found in a cell’s nucleus, so it’s easier to study. Researchers focused especially on haplotypes, which are sequences of genes that mutate more slowly than the rest of the mtDNA. [Their analysis showed that Naia’s mtDNA contains a haplotype that occurs in modern Native Americans and only is found in the Americas; scientists believe it evolved in Beringia. “We were able to identify her genetic lineage with high certainty," says Ripan Malhi, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois. Malhi’s lab was one of three that analyzed Naia’s mtDNA; all three analyses yielded the same results. "This shows that living Native Americans and these ancient remains of the girl we analyzed all came from the same source population during the initial peopling of the Americas." Naia proves that migrations from Beringia made it to southern Mexico. As for why Naia’s skull is so different from modern Native Americans, co- author Deborah Bolnick, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin has an explanation: “The physical differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans today are more likely due to changes that occurred in Beringia and the Americas over the last 9,000 years.” Bolnick’s lab was one of the three to confirm the mtDNA findings. Studies of Naia—namely the fact that she’s a genetic forerunner to modern Native Americans—ironically raises some interesting questions about whether scientists will be able to get access and extract the remains of early Americans yet to be uncovered.
Winters' own reference completely supports what I wrote and contradicts Winters. I have any number of examples of this type of citation.
Samuel Johnson wrote "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel' Here what we have is "Racism is the last refuge of the racist." Nothing is more racist than to argue that superior race of Blacks had ti travel around the world to civilize other inferior races. Native Americans (mongoloids) had to wait for the Mande to teach them how to write, how to farm, how to etc.
When you run out of arguments and evidence-- the first refuge is ad hominem and "racism." How is the defense of the native Americans an example of white Eurocentric racism?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Bernard ortiz de Montellano you are a racist. Montellano because you are a white supremacist you are putting words in Dr. Critters mouth so you can pretend the PaleoAmerican craniofacial is the same as modern Native Americans you know this is false, yet you tell this line. In the Smithsonian Magazine according to Dr. Critters, Naia was phenotypically Black.
Sloppy work. His name is Chatters not Critters.
quote:Bernard ortiz de Montellano you are the face of the new white supremacy. Racist Montellano, even when the evidence does not support your erasure of blacks from Ancient America you continue to lie, knowing your ilk will be blind to the truth to maintain your racist ideas about Blacks.
Does anyone on this forum ever look up and read Winters' citations. He is a master of cherry picking and misquotations. Winters says
quote:Naia’s teeth had another role to play: With her age established, scientists then sought to extract her DNA from her molars. "We tried a DNA extraction on the outside chance some fragments might remain," says Chatters. "I was shocked when we actually got intact DNA." The researchers focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is used by geneticists to examine how populations are related. mtDNA is more abundant than DNA found in a cell’s nucleus, so it’s easier to study. Researchers focused especially on haplotypes, which are sequences of genes that mutate more slowly than the rest of the mtDNA. [Their analysis showed that Naia’s mtDNA contains a haplotype that occurs in modern Native Americans and only is found in the Americas; scientists believe it evolved in Beringia. “We were able to identify her genetic lineage with high certainty," says Ripan Malhi, a professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois. Malhi’s lab was one of three that analyzed Naia’s mtDNA; all three analyses yielded the same results. "This shows that living Native Americans and these ancient remains of the girl we analyzed all came from the same source population during the initial peopling of the Americas." Naia proves that migrations from Beringia made it to southern Mexico. As for why Naia’s skull is so different from modern Native Americans, co- author Deborah Bolnick, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin has an explanation: “The physical differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans today are more likely due to changes that occurred in Beringia and the Americas over the last 9,000 years.” Bolnick’s lab was one of the three to confirm the mtDNA findings. Studies of Naia—namely the fact that she’s a genetic forerunner to modern Native Americans—ironically raises some interesting questions about whether scientists will be able to get access and extract the remains of early Americans yet to be uncovered.
Winters' own reference completely supports what I wrote and contradicts Winters. I have any number of examples of this type of citation.
Samuel Johnson wrote "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel' Here what we have is "Racism is the last refuge of the racist." Nothing is more racist than to argue that superior race of Blacks had ti travel around the world to civilize other inferior races. Native Americans (mongoloids) had to wait for the Mande to teach them how to write, how to farm, how to etc.
When you run out of arguments and evidence-- the first refuge is ad hominem and "racism." How is the defense of the native Americans an example of white Eurocentric racism?
You always tell people to check my citations, above I posted the Smithsonian article explicitely. But like most white supremacist Montellano you failed to note the following
quote:
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."
Failure to accurately quote the article illustrations how you lie, Montellano to support your racist ideas.
Montellano is a sick racist. He claims that I am a racist for saying the PaleoAmericans were phenotypically Australian, Melanesian or African. There is nothing in this statement that says Blacks are superior to anybody. It is a factual quotation made by the researcher who wrote an article on Naia's DNA.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano I can not be a racist citing the quote of a reliable researcher claiming the phenotype of the PaleoAmericans. For you to see racism in a statement of a neutral researcher, made explicit by me, shows you are delusional and need help to wipe the racism from your heart.
Stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Winters: "I can not debate the use of Coracles. But I would thinks that a dugout canoe made from a log would have been easier to make than a Coracle that could carry several passengers, an issue you discuss above." - - -
Coracles were used on the Nile River in Africa, per ancient Greek writers. Coracles loaded with flocks of goats safely cross rivers in India daily, usually punted across by the ferrier.
A pygmy lady can collect needed items and weave them into a waterproof dome hut in one hour. Flip it over and tie a vine around the exposed posts ... voilà, a coracle.(excluding the recently-evolved doorway)
Dugout canoes take far far longer to construct unless modern chain saws are used.
A faster compromise is the katumaram of India with is 3 split logs tied and partially flattened for a seat platform. But these too were much later than coracles.
When the Aynu/Ainu/Utari (later Tauri/Tochari) followed the Flood eastwards to Tarim Basin's Lop Nur & Urumchi, they continued on to Japan where they met the Jomon Ama divers. The Ainu shared with Ama plank basket tech from Crimea, changing from the wicker basketry used before, and beginning the evolution of planked boats and eventually iron spatulas/swords.
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] And where are the nappy haired descendant of Paleoamericans anywhere in the Americas today?
They went extinct?
When Clyde? When ?
No, they didn't go extinct.
.They did not go extinct , but they are also NOT paleoamericans. They are descendants of slaves brought to the New World and in Obama's case a Kenyan father.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: They did not go extinct , but they are also NOT paleoamericans. They are descendants of slaves brought to the New World and in Obama's case a Kenyan father.
I never paid much attention to you asshole, but I am now. So you want to take a randomly chosen picture as literal huh? Well tell me this asshole, what proof can you offer as to the origins of Black Americans in general?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: They did not go extinct , but they are also NOT paleoamericans. They are descendants of slaves brought to the New World and in Obama's case a Kenyan father.
I never paid much attention to you asshole, but I am now. So you want to take a randomly chosen picture as literal huh? Well tell me this asshole, what proof can you offer as to the origins of Black Americans in general?
You may have not paid attention to him but he has posted a page on you at the White Supremacy site Wiki rational See:
Your so-called nappy headed Indians never went extinct they live in the Afro-American community. It is only in your mind's eye, created by viewing cowboy and indian movies, that you believe that the only Native Americans were mongoloid. Racist lioness, stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
Some black folk don't use the term "nappy" always to mean unkempt but just to mean afro hair type.
Clyde I often ask you if descendants of paleoamericans live in contemporary Mexico and you reply over and over again that instead, Mexicans are admixed with African slaves and you put up your doctored "Mixed blood" photo trying to argue against it So stop being hypocritical, Because recent Africans have some features in come doesn't mean broad featured are all that way because of misture with African slaves and none descendant of paleoamericans
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Your so-called nappy headed Indians never went extinct they live in the Afro-American community. It is only in your mind's eye, created by viewing cowboy and indian movies, that you believe that the only Native Americans were mongoloid. Racist lioness, stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
Some black folk don't use the term "nappy" always to mean unkempt but just to mean afro hair type.
Clyde I often ask you if descendants of paleoamericans live in contemporary Mexico and you reply over and over again that instead, Mexicans are admixed with African slaves and you put up your doctored "Mixed blood" photo trying to argue against it So stop being hypocritical, Because recent Africans have some features in come doesn't mean broad featured are all that way because of misture with African slaves and none descendant of paleoamericans
You are a liar. I have always admitted that many Black Mexicans may be descendants of the PaleoAmericans. The Mongoloid Mexicans have mixed with African slaves. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your so-called nappy headed Indians never went extinct they live in the Afro-American community. It is only in your mind's eye, created by viewing cowboy and indian movies, that you believe that the only Native Americans were mongoloid. Racist lioness, stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
Some black folk don't use the term "nappy" always to mean unkempt but just to mean afro hair type.
Clyde I often ask you if descendants of paleoamericans live in contemporary Mexico and you reply over and over again that instead, Mexicans are admixed with African slaves and you put up your doctored "Mixed blood" photo trying to argue against it So stop being hypocritical, Because recent Africans have some features in come doesn't mean broad featured are all that way because of misture with African slaves and none descendant of paleoamericans
You are a liar. I have always admitted that many Black Mexicans may be descendants of the PaleoAmericans. The Mongoloid Mexicans have mixed with African slaves. .
I am now going to have to pull up numerous quotes from you of which I proposed some modern Mexicans might be descendants of paleoamericans and you never say yes to this. Instead you always put up your "Mexicans are Mixed Blood" poster and point of admixure with slaves and call them "Mongoloids" which I am sure they don't like. White people are not even involved in the scenario either way.
Clyde, I say you are the racist
You call people racist for not thinking a large group of Africans went to the Americas in canoes and settled there. Yet there is no hard evidence of this at all
Look at the Oase 2 reconstuction
^^^ If this is a Romanian from 35 Kya and I were to propose he got to Europe over land am I a racist because I didn't say he did it by boat across Gibralter, a more difficult method?
If one assume early man went over land as opposed to sea does this mean one is saying Africans were to dumb to use boats?
No it's occams razor:
among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
____________________
^^^ Clyde you always ignore this, you always prefer the elaborate explanation
paleolithic Siberians have a different morphology than modern Siberians. And it's you who always say the first Chinese were black (whatever this means exactly) . So if this is the case than such black Asians could still be the ancestors of Paleooamericans and who crossed the berring strait rather than using boats
Look, even primitive so called white people are portrayed as "cavemen", not given the impression that they were these sophisticated paleolithic navigators who crossed the oceans in large numbers
Clyde when did you first get obsessed with boating? Is that some chilhood thing?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: They did not go extinct , but they are also NOT paleoamericans. They are descendants of slaves brought to the New World and in Obama's case a Kenyan father.
I never paid much attention to you asshole, but I am now. So you want to take a randomly chosen picture as literal huh? Well tell me this asshole, what proof can you offer as to the origins of Black Americans in general?
You may have not paid attention to him but he has posted a page on you at the White Supremacy site Wiki rational See:
He even claims that Tukuler is a Black Supremacist.
.
.
Clyde, you lie like a rug. I certainly not the poster at that site. Before now, I have never heard of it. The first post does not refer to me at all and the second basically says I oppose a lot of what you say- true, but why claim that it is me that posted it?
This is the lowest you have ever sunken attacking me. I only post in 2 places-- here and in the hallofmaat. I think I 'm on Egypt search reloaded but I don't post there.
should we talk about your employment at the Chicago Police Department?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: They did not go extinct , but they are also NOT paleoamericans. They are descendants of slaves brought to the New World and in Obama's case a Kenyan father.
I never paid much attention to you asshole, but I am now. So you want to take a randomly chosen picture as literal huh? Well tell me this asshole, what proof can you offer as to the origins of Black Americans in general?
A couple of problems. 1) On this forum a very common way of arguing is to post pictures as evidence. So, when you post a picture of , the Obamas, Colin Powell, Martin Luther King, etc. all of whom we know are NOT surviving paleoindians- are we supposed to immediately think it was randomly chosen photo image?
2) As repeatedly discussed here-- over 10 million African blacks were brought to the New World as slaves with many more dying in the passage. So the origin of Black people in the Americas is the 500 years of slave importation and natural increases due to population growth.
3) The really basic problem is that Clyde Winters has invented an idiosyncratic people-- Paleoindians,, who are Black Native Americans and come from Africa. However, he (and his followers) are the only people who say that. Nowhere in the refereed literature produced by the geneticists, who are the only people to actually get their hands wet and do the research and publish the papers on which we all rely (including Winters cherry picking) are Paleoindians called anything but Native Americans, nobody calls them African. If you google, "Black Native Americans" you don't get Paleoindians, you get people with mixed ancestry. There have been 500 years of possible intermarriage (or at least sex) between African Slaves and Native Americans.
The big logical error here is circular reasoning, i.e asserting what you need to prove. So far none of the mtDNAs of paleoindians have had anything but haplotypes of Native Americans- therefore Winters likes to claim that traces of African genetics in mixed populations are survivals of these Paleoindians. But this is not evidence of the nature of paleoindians Unless you show that these traces could absolutely not be due to the 500 year presence of African brought as slaves.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Winters is the one making the extraordinary claim that Africans came to the New World by boat first 100,000 years ago and then repeatedly including 1200 BC (the Olmecs) and 1311 AD (Mansa Musa)-- all the time not leaving a single artifact dug in a controlled excavation.
I don't ned to prove where Black Americans came from there are thousands of books and articles describing the African slave trade.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic