This is topic Misleading video in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=013204

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
This video is in many ways insidious and misleading. It is skillfully made, and has a media-savvy and good-looking program presenter who presents the message in an easy-to-understand and attractive way. The film also uses images of African peoples in a misleading way, insinuating that they depict aboriginal Americans.

The real Native Americans are not mentioned at all, but everything that happened to them is presented as if it happened to the African American peoples alleged aboriginal ancestors, so called "Black Indians".

Must be difficult for uninitiated people, and especially children, to guard themselves against this kind of fake history writing.



Beacause it matters - Black Indians were already here
 

---

Posted by TheTruth01 (Member # 23246) on :
 
It looks like they used the Beja in the opening photo of Native Americans. The rest of them appear to be pretty accurate as far as their argument.
 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheTruth01:
It looks like they used the Beja in the opening photo of Native Americans. The rest of them appear to be pretty accurate as far as their argument.

---

This (mis-)information comes from a guy named Dane Coloway, with the largest platform. He’s a transatlantic slavery denialer as well. Years ago they used this Beja picture and I went to that channel to explain what he was using. Of course he denied it. He things he’s separate from West Africans and West Africa, so he will use any other group to portray Black Americans as or not as them.

Dane’s latest video.

https://youtu.be/SkzNWgHD-6M


But a much greater issue/ problem is the 5 dollar Indian/ Pretentian.


The ABOS is a relatively large movement.


https://youtu.be/pgzhV5cJhF4


One of the fathers of this concept is Marc (something, think his name is Marc Washington). He was a poster/ author on this website during the early days.


It’s a mixture of truths and falsehoods they are bringing, but of course none of them will do a DNA test to show their proximity.


First peoples of Europe. Documentary.



First Peoples S01E05 Europe

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2y5b9n
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
IT is not insidious or misleading to claim that Black Indians have been here for 100,000 years so their is no reason to believe that Black Indians were not here when Europeans arrived in the Americas.

The first Native Americans were not mongoloid people. Africans have been in the Americas for 100,000 years. The earliest site where these Africans, or Blacks lived was Brazil. Eastern Seaboard, Midwest and California. This means that many foundational Blacks go back to these aboriginal Americans.

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 @:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4


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.

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 W.W. Howell’s measurements researchers determined the PaleoIndians were of African, Australian or Melanesian origin. Melanesians and Africans have the same measurements. Howells using multivariate analyses, determined that the Easter Island population was characterized as Australo-Melanesian, while other skeletons from South America were found to be related to Africans and Australians . The African-Australo-Melanesian morphology was widespread in North and South America. The remains of the Black Variety have been found in Brazil , Columbian Highlands , Mexico , Florida , and even Southern Patazonia .

The craniometric mesasurements of the Paleoamerican skeletons fall within the Black Variety of homo sapien sapiens: African, Australian and the Melanesian phenotypic range (Neves, Powell and Ozolins,1998, 1999a,1999b; Powell,2005). The craniometric measurements of the PaleoIndians match the multivariate standard deviations of these three populations.

The determination of the Paleoamericans as members of the Black Variety is not a new phenomena.

Howells ( 1973,1989,1995) using multivariate analyses, determined that the Easter Island population was characterized as Australo-Melanesian, while other skeletons from South America were found to be related to Africans and Australians ( Coon, 1962; Dixon, 2001; Howell, 1989, 1995; Lahr, 1996). The African-Australo-Melanesian morphology was widespread in North and South America.

For example skeletal remains belonging to the Black Variety have been found in Brazil (Neves, Powell, Prous and Ozolins,1998; Neves, Powell, Ozolins, 1998), Columbian Highlands (Neves, Pacciarelli, Munford, 1995; Powell, 2005 ), Mexico ( Gonza’lez-Jose, 2012), Florida ( Howells,1995), and Southern Patazonia ( Neves, Powell and Ozolins,1999a,1999b).

Craniometric and skeletal evidence indicates that Paleoamericans were related to the Australian, Polynesian or Sub-Saharan type. Novembre et al (2016) argue that Kennewick man is related more to modern Native Americans, instead of the PaleoAmericans. In support of this hypothesis Novembre et al (2015) conclude that Kennewick man is closely related to the South American Karitiana people.

The finding by Novembre et al (2015) that genetically Kennewick man related mostly to the Karitiana falsifies their hypothesis. It is falsified because Skoglund et al (2015) found that the Karitiana and other Amozonian people in South America have an Australasian heritage. The identification of a relationship between Kennewick man and the Karitiana would continue to situate this Native American in the Paleoamerican group--not contemporary Native Americans.
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.
The earliest evidence for Paleoamericans in Bazil of a Negro phynotype make it clear the Americas was a Negro continent until the coming of the Mongoloids 8kya . Although the physical features of contemporary Brazilians appears more mongoloid. These Native Americans continue to carry Negro genes dating back to the first migrations of Blacks to Brazil 100,000 years ago.
The Black Native Americans came here mainly by boat. The Melanesians settled the West coast, while Africans from West Africa settled along the East coast of the Americas.Other Blacks crossed the Bearing Straits.

It appears to me that Sub-Saharan Africans (SSA) and the Khoisan were the major Black populations in North America. In South America, the pgymies had the greatest influence. That’s why we see two different types of mongoloid Native Americans a smallest group in south America and a taller SSA type population in North America and Mexico.

As a result, the archaeological literature makes it clear there has always been Black Indians in the Americas

Reference:
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.

Skoglund et al (2015), Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas , NATURE ,525 ( 3 SEPTEMBER):104-108. Retrieved 5/1/2016 at
: https://tinyurl.com/xezvdurf

Winters, C. (2015). Paleoamericans came from Africa, https://www.academia.edu/17137182/THE_PALEOAMERICANS_CAME_FROM_AFRICA


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/earliest-south-american-migrants-had-australian-melanesian-ancestry

[ 26. September 2021, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 
It's beyond ridiculous at this point for people to continue to deny the overwhelming evidence that African Americans have been in the America's since it's first settlement. The descendants of Mongoloid native Americans were told by whites that they were the only Natives, when in reality they came onto the Africoid migrants when they came to the Americas only around 6,000 years ago. There is no pure anything in Latin America, but some of these people want to project themselves as some unique race rather than acknowledging that their African component is the single greatest linkage to this land.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
It's beyond ridiculous at this point for people to continue to deny the overwhelming evidence that African Americans have been in the America's since it's first settlement. The descendants of Mongoloid native Americans were told by whites that they were the only Natives, when in reality they came onto the Africoid migrants when they came to the Americas only around 6,000 years ago. There is no pure anything in Latin America, but some of these people want to project themselves as some unique race rather than acknowledging that their African component is the single greatest linkage to this land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
It's beyond ridiculous at this point for people to continue to deny the overwhelming evidence that African Americans have been in the America's since it's first settlement. The descendants of Mongoloid native Americans were told by whites that they were the only Natives, when in reality they came onto the Africoid migrants when they came to the Americas only around 6,000 years ago. There is no pure anything in Latin America, but some of these people want to project themselves as some unique race rather than acknowledging that their African component is the single greatest linkage to this land.

---

let's see one or two examples of hard evidence

Clyde please don't try to help him on this, thats cheating

Let him (or her) post something first

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
It's beyond ridiculous at this point for people to continue to deny the overwhelming evidence that African Americans have been in the America's since it's first settlement. The descendants of Mongoloid native Americans were told by whites that they were the only Natives, when in reality they came onto the Africoid migrants when they came to the Americas only around 6,000 years ago. There is no pure anything in Latin America, but some of these people want to project themselves as some unique race rather than acknowledging that their African component is the single greatest linkage to this land.

---

let's see one or two examples of hard evidence

Clyde please don't try to help him on this, thats cheating

Let him (or her) post something first

---

1) "Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that there were Africans among the Olmecs."
"This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal
remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. "
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the Negroid type black.
Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975)."

2)A.6' 7,11 X-ray findings of the
skulls in Mayan Indians were suggestive of sickle
cell disease .20 It has also been described in Mexicans.
The sickle cell trait was found in 7.3 per cent
of a series of over eight thousand Negroes,9 with
a higher percentage in South African natives.10

3)



4) Pyramid
& down moving Serpent structures in both Nigeria and the Americas (clearly a celestial correlation)



[ 27. September 2021, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
@Big O, that picture of Chichen Itza picture is too big
when you post more pictures try to keep them of the size so that the side slider is not necessary. I'll let this one slide because it is not that much too big but try to keep them around 950-
thanks

Also above you have two quotes
1)
and
2)

they should be credited properly

please hit the edit icon of your post (note pad upper right) and then add in the author's name,
article title, URL link and date (or as much of those that you have)

thanks
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. This is funny coming from you. It is funny because you close any thread or edit the post where I post pictures of these ancient Blacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
LOL. This is funny coming from you. It is funny because you close any thread or edit the post where I post pictures of these ancient Blacks.

---

Dr. Winters, stop making up stuff

I close threads that are bumped for the sake of bumping. Not adding new content, instead self promotional

Exact repeats on what you have posted dozens of times before

Also no huge bibliographies that take up half the page
That doesn't mean no references it means if there is a giant blocks of the text instead put a link to your website where the mile long bibliographies are

Also 12 separate references all by one author Neves, W. A is also excessive

cut down on the over-bearing please

---

This is bs. You just want to maintain the status quo dogma that Black people don´t have an ancient history.


I posted the references because it will help someone interested in the subject finding a variety of sources they can use to support their theme. I might add, these references are not all of the papers written by Neves on the Paleoamericans.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 



Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.

Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.
________________________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.

Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.
________________________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid

---

1) Clyde where are the 63 human remains samples now from this 49 year old article?
Where is a third party verifying the existence of these remains and the dates?

2) does the term "Africoid" exactly = Negroid?

3) what categories in the chart you are adding up under Tlatilco to arrive at 13.5% Africoid

4) what total percentage does Wiercinski say are Africoid or Negroid or does he say?

5) what is Wiercinski's explanation for why there are different types here as opposed to being all one type?

---

I published the Wiercinski paper over a decade ago:

http://olmec98.net/contents1.htm

The picture I posted from Wiercinski's article shows that the Olmec were recognized by Wiercinski as Negroes or Africans.

Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).

Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that the were Africans among the Olmecs. This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."


To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.

In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.

The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.



In Table 2, we record the racial composition of the Olmec according to the Wiercinski (1972b) study. The races recorded in this table are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.

Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type. It is interesting to note that the emperical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.

The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.
Below are the racial types identified by Wiercinski:

Equatorial Type
http://olmec98.net/Image261.gif


Dongolan Type
http://olmec98.net/Image262.gif

http://olmec98.net/Image263.gif


Sub-Pacific and Bushmanoid-Armenoid

http://olmec98.net/Image264.gif

Anatolian

http://olmec98.net/Image269.gif

Rossum (1996) has criticied the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.

First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang The Archaeology of ancient China (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68). These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.

The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome. This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas.

Wiercinski on the otherhand, compared his SRC to an unmixed European and African sample. This comparison avoided the use of skeletal material that is clearly mixed with Africans and Europeans, in much the same way as the Afro-American people he discussed in his essay who have acquired "white" features since mixing with whites due to the slave trade.




Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. This skeletal evidence explains the discovery of many African tribes in Mexico and Central America when Columbus discovered the Americas (de Quatrefages, 1836).

The skeletal material from Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas and evidence that the Olmecs used an African writing to inscribe their monuments and artifacts, make it clear that Africans were a predominant part of the Olmec population.

These Olmecs constructed complex pyramids and large sculptured monuments weighing tons. The Maya during the Pre-Classic period built pyramids over the Olmec pyramids to disguise the Olmec origin of these pyramids.
.

[ 26. September 2021, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Clyde I just told Big o not to use pictures too large and here you are posting five

You can repost them if re-sized but they are ridiculously large and over-bearing
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.

Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

3) what categories in the chart you are adding up under Tlatilco to arrive at 13.5% Africoid

---

I should have not asked this question, I just overlooked it in the chart. The 13.5% is right there in the chart, the second item "Subainuid"
However looking at that chart I do not see a correspondence to
"4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid"

Anyway "Subainuid" is a term Wiercinski made up
he also was an adherent of making up stuff.
It derives from Ainu, native people of Northern Japan

He also uses another very weird term of his own, "Amenoid-Bushman" combining an Armenian, part of the Caucasus region with a Bushman presumably of Southern Africa, this is an almost comical hybrid

Where is a plain old pure African type in this chart with an unmistakable common African type ??

Wiercinski summarizes his research by offering the following "ethnogenetical hypotheses":

1)The indigenous rootstock of Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas consists of "Ainoid, Arctic, and Pacific racial elements".

2) "A next migratory wave" brought in additional Pacific as well as "Laponoid" elements.

3)"Some Chinese influence of Shang Period could penetrate Mesoamerica"

4)"A strange transatlantic, more or less sporadic migration" brought Armenoid, Equatorial, and Bushmenoid elements.

Cerro de las Mesa is within the Olmec heartland, although according to Wiercinski, "the series . . . is dated on the Classic period."[16] The Classic period is generally defined to start around AD 250, or 600 years after the end of the Olmec culture.


Wiercinski's research methods and conclusions are not accepted by the vast majority of Mesoamerican scholars, in part because of his reliance on the Polish Comparative-Morphological methodology which limits the placement of skull types within a very narrow spectrum that is often within Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. Native Americans are thus made to fit within these groups which often yields false and contradictory assumptions as a result of sample bias.

____________________
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Ish Geber (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The first Native Americans were not mongoloid people. Africans have been in the Americas for 100,000 years. The earliest site where these Africans, or Blacks lived was Brazil. Eastern Seaboard, Midwest and California. This means that many foundational Blacks go back to these aboriginal Americans.

---

It does sound logical (especially with the documentary I've posted), but is there anthropological and genetic evidence for this in the Americas (especially North America)?

If so, why is it that when Black Americans (ADOS/FBA) do genetic tests (autosomal or mitochondrial sequence), they by proximity end up in Africa. Meaning, by proximity relate close to present day living Africans in those regions.











Ancestry Composition of African Americans, lipstickalley.com

The main source:

https://tracingafricanroots.wordpress.com
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Wouldn't the difference be timeframe? If the first natives came from Africa,nobody said they were ancestors to the Africans that came over from the Trans Atlantic slave trade. Also, another issue would be sample size. I'm not some ethnically sensitive baby who wants to claim everybody,but I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. Black population was grossly underrepresented in census or genetic studies.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
If the first natives came from Africa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Clyde I just told Big o not to use pictures too large and here you are posting five

You can repost them if re-sized but they are ridiculously large and over-bearing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The first Native Americans were not mongoloid people. Africans have been in the Americas for 100,000 years. The earliest site where these Africans, or Blacks lived was Brazil. Eastern Seaboard, Midwest and California. This means that many foundational Blacks go back to these aboriginal Americans.

---

It does sound logical (especially with the documentary I've posted), but is there anthropological and genetic evidence for this in the Americas (especially North America)?

If so, why is it that when Black Americans (ADOS/FBA) do genetic tests (autosomal or mitochondrial sequence), they by proximity end up in Africa. Meaning, by proximity relate close to present day living Africans in those regions.











Ancestry Composition of African Americans, lipstickalley.com

The main source:

https://tracingafricanroots.wordpress.com

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
@lioness From what I gather,the Americas was populated in two waves: the first bringing in the paleoindians and the next bring in the natives with a mongoloid feature set.

---

quote:

---

• (i) Motivation
  There were a number of populations for which we did not have access to unadmixed samples. To learn about the history of such populations, we needed to adjust for the presence of non-Native ancestry. We used three complementary approaches to do this. The concordance of results from all these approaches increases our confidence in the key findings of this study.
  
  (1) Restricting to unadmixed samples: We restricted some analyses to 163 Native American samples (34 populations) without any evidence of recent European or African admixture (Note S2). A limitation of these studies, however, is that we could not analyze 16 populations in which all individuals were inferred to have some degree of recent admixture.
  
  (2) Local ancestry masking: We identified segments of the genome in each individual that had an appreciable probability of harboring non-Native American or Siberian ancestry. We then created a “masked” dataset that treated genetic data in these sections as missing (Note S4).
  
  (3) Ancestry Subtraction: We explicitly corrected for the effect of the estimated proportion of European and African in each sample by adjusting the value of f4-statistics by the amount that is expected from this admixture. This is discussed in what follows.
  
  (ii) Details of Ancestry Subtraction
  Assume that we have an accurate estimate of African and European ancestry for each sample (whether it is an individual or a pool of individuals). In practice, we used the ADMIXTURE k=4 estimates, because as described below, they appear to be accurate for Native American populations (with the possible exception of Aleuts as we discuss below). We can then define:
  
  a = % African ancestry in a test sample
  e = % European ancestry in a test sample
  1-a-e = % Native ancestry
  
  For many of our analyses, we are computing f4 statistics, whose values are affected in a known way by European and African admixture. Thus, we can algebraically correct for the effect of recent European or African admixture on the test statistics, obtaining an “Ancestry Subtracted” statistic that is what is expected for the sample if it had no recent European or African ancestry.
  
  The main context in which we compute f4 statistics is in our implementation of the 4 Population Test, to evaluate whether the allele frequency correlation patterns in the data are consistent with the proposed tree ((Unadmixed, Test),(Outgroup1, Outgroup2)), where the Unadmixed population is a set of Native American samples assumed to derive all of their ancestry from the initial population that peopled America, the Test population is another Native American population, and the two outgroups are Asian populations. An f4 statistic consistent with zero suggests that the Unadmixed and Test populations form a clade with no evidence of ancestry from more recent streams of gene flow from Asia. If the Test population harbors recent European or African ancestry, however, a significant deviation of this statistic from zero would be expected, making it difficult to interpret the results. We thus compute a linear combination of f4 statistics that is expected to equal what we would obtain if we had access to the Native American ancestors of the Test population without recent European or African admixture:
  
  S_1=(f_4 (Unadmixed,Test;Out1,Out2)-(a) f_4 (Unadmixed,Yoruba;Out1,Out2)-(e) f_4 (Unadmixed,French;Out1,Out2))/(1-a-e) (S3.1)
  
  Intuitively, this statistic is subtracting the contribution to the f4 statistic that is expected from their proportion a of West African-like ancestry (Yoruba), and their proportion e of West Eurasian-like ancestry (French). We then renormalize by 1/(1-a-e) to obtain the statistic that would be expected if the sample was unadmixed.
  
  A potential concern is that the African and European ancestry in any real Native American test sample is not likely to be from Yoruba and French exactly; instead, it will be from related populations. However, S1 is still expected to have the value we wish to compute if we choose the outgroups to be East Asians or Siberians. The reason is that genetic differences between Yoruba and the true African ancestors, and French and the true European ancestors, are not expected to be correlated to the frequency differences between two East Asian or Siberian outgroups. Specifically, the allele frequency differences are due to history within Africa or Europe, which is not expected to be correlated to allele frequency differences within East Asia and within Siberia.
  
  (iii) Ancestry Subtraction gives results concordant with those on unadmixed samples
  To compare the performance of our three approaches to address the confounder of recent European and African admixture, we computed 48 = 8×6 statistics of the form f4(Unadmixed, Test; Han, San). We choose “Unadmixed” to be one of 8 Native American groups from Meso-America southward that have sample sizes of at least two and for which all samples are inferred to be unadmixed by ADMIXTURE k=4 (Chane, Embera, Guahibo, Guaymi, Karitiana, Kogi, Surui and Waunana). We choose “Test” to be one of 8 Native American populations from Meso-America southward with at least two samples that are entirely unadmixed, and that also have at least two samples that have >5% non-Native admixture according to the ADMIXTURE k=4 analysis (Aymara, Cabecar, Pima, Tepehuano, Wayuu and Zapotec1). This allows us to compare results on admixed and unadmixed samples from the same population.
  
  If the Test population harbors European or West African admixture that we have not corrected, we expect to see a significant deviation of the statistic from zero. For example, f4(Karitiana, French; Han, San), corresponding to the statistic expected for an entirely European-admixed Native American population, is significant at Z = 45 standard errors from zero, and f4(Karitiana, Yoruba; Han, San), which gives the f4-value we would expect for an entirely West African-admixed Native American population, is significant at Z = 101.
  
  Figure S3.1 shows the scatterplots of Z-scores we obtain without Ancestry Subtraction, with Ancestry Subtraction, and with local ancestry masking (Note S4). The x-axis shows data for the unadmixed samples from each Test population, while the y-axis shows the results for the >5% admixed samples from the same populations. We find that:
  • Without Ancestry Subtraction there are significant deviations from zero (|Z|>3) (Fig. S3.1A)
  • With Ancestry Subtraction, there are no residual |Z|-scores >3 (Figure S3.1B)
  • With local ancestry masking (Note S4), there are again no residual |Z|-scores >3 (Figure S3.1C), showing that this method also appears to be appropriately correcting for the admixture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
@lioness From what I gather,the Americas was populated in two waves: the first bringing in the paleoindians and the next bring in the natives with a mongoloid feature set.

---

.

Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
They end up in Africa because the entire foundation of populatiom genetics is based on a lie. Population genetic theory is based on the myth that Africans, mogoloids and Europeans did not meet until 1492. This is a lie. Musliums from Senegal, for example ruled Iberia until 1492, as a result, when they said particular populations carried this or that gene/haplogroup was bs. For example, they claim that Africans only carried Y-Chromosome E, when you published an article years ago that many early slaves in the Caribbean carried Y-haplogroup R.Thisw makes it clear that when foundational Black Americans are found to carry R1, it is of African origin. Moreover, it indicates that the mongoloid Indians that carry R1, acquired this haplogroup from the Black Indians who have been in the Americas for 100,000 years.

Thusly, the presence of haplogroups mtDNA A and M1, and Y-Chromosome R1, show the aboriginal origin of foundational Black Americans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
They end up in Africa because the entire foundation of populatiom genetics is based on a lie. Population genetic theory is based on the myth that Africans, mogoloids and Europeans did not meet until 1492. This is a lie. Musliums from Senegal, for example ruled Iberia until 1492, as a result, when they said particular populations carried this or that gene/haplogroup was bs. For example, they claim that Africans only carried Y-Chromosome E, when you published an article years ago that many early slaves in the Caribbean carried Y-haplogroup R.Thisw makes it clear that when foundational Black Americans are found to carry R1, it is of African origin. Moreover, it indicates that the mongoloid Indians that carry R1, acquired this haplogroup from the Black Indians who have been in the Americas for 100,000 years.

Thusly, the presence of haplogroups mtDNA A and M1, and Y-Chromosome R1, show the aboriginal origin of foundational Black Americans

---

That’s exiting news.

How you determine it’s a lie without having done actual genetic sequences in a lab? I’m not saying it’s true or false, but I wonder how you can determine that without actual sequences done in a lab?

Where are the remains of these Black Indians to analyze the comparisons with modern Black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Wouldn't the difference be timeframe? If the first natives came from Africa,nobody said they were ancestors to the Africans that came over from the Trans Atlantic slave trade. Also, another issue would be sample size. I'm not some ethnically sensitive baby who wants to claim everybody,but I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. Black population was grossly underrepresented in census or genetic studies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
We know its a lie because the Moors/Africans were in Europe exchanging genes for almost 1000 years. As a result, they don´t know what genes the Europeans were carrying before the Moors ruled. Secondly, European whites don´t enter Europe from Central Asia until after 800BC.

LOL. The early North Americans carried M1. LMAO then they said the genes were mtDNA A. The ancient Americans also carried M1 which, they now call D4.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
We know its a lie because the Moors/Africans were in Europe exchanging genes for almost 1000 years. As a result, they don´t know what genes the Europeans were carrying before the Moors ruled. Secondly, European whites don´t enter Europe from Central Asia until after 800BC.

LOL. The early North Americans carried M1. LMAO then they said the genes were mtDNA A. The ancient Americans also carried M1 which, they now call D4.

---

[/QUOTE
]

The Moors were all over Europe, not just in the South. The Strasbourgs were even Moors.


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-00-18a.html
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Wouldn't the difference be timeframe? If the first natives came from Africa,nobody said they were ancestors to the Africans that came over from the Trans Atlantic slave trade. Also, another issue would be sample size. I'm not some ethnically sensitive baby who wants to claim everybody,but I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. Black population was grossly underrepresented in census or genetic studies.

---

The issue is that these genetic tests are based on proximity to relatedness of populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
We may never know the admixture between Native Americans and Africans if we wait to get the information from researchers because they are attempting to maintain the status quo.

Discrepancies take place because researchers do not want to tell the truth about the genetic histories of African people and their admixture with Native Americans and Eurasians. As a result, researchers have developed methods to exclude evidence of non-Africans carrying haplogroups mtDNA haplogroups L, and y-Chromosomes E and A.

This is due to the protocols of AdMixture and Structure programs that assume that Native Americans, Europeans and Africans only met after 1492. As a result researchers try to find methods to exclude African presence in European and Native Americans so evidence of this admixture will not be evidenced in the final results. Next researchers claim that if African people carry mtDNA haplogroups: N, R, M and D ; and Y-Chromosomes C, Q, I, J, and R, they are carrying Eurasians haplogroups, eventhough all of these haplogroups are found among African populations that have no history of admixture with Europeans. As a result, these haplogroups are probably of African origin--not a back migration.

Researchers believe this evidence should be excluded because any African admixture among these populations have to be recent.
The best example of how African admixture is excluded in research is Reich, D. et al, Reconstructing Native American population history. Nature 488, 370-374 (2012) Paper web page , the method used to exclude African admixture from this study is detailed in Supplementary Material 1.Reich, D. et al (2012) outlines the motivations for the exclusion of Africans from his study:

quote:

---

• (i) Motivation
  There were a number of populations for which we did not have access to unadmixed samples. To learn about the history of such populations, we needed to adjust for the presence of non-Native ancestry. We used three complementary approaches to do this. The concordance of results from all these approaches increases our confidence in the key findings of this study.
  
  (1) Restricting to unadmixed samples: We restricted some analyses to 163 Native American samples (34 populations) without any evidence of recent European or African admixture (Note S2). A limitation of these studies, however, is that we could not analyze 16 populations in which all individuals were inferred to have some degree of recent admixture.
  
  (2) Local ancestry masking: We identified segments of the genome in each individual that had an appreciable probability of harboring non-Native American or Siberian ancestry. We then created a “masked” dataset that treated genetic data in these sections as missing (Note S4).
  
  (3) Ancestry Subtraction: We explicitly corrected for the effect of the estimated proportion of European and African in each sample by adjusting the value of f4-statistics by the amount that is expected from this admixture. This is discussed in what follows.
  
  (ii) Details of Ancestry Subtraction
  Assume that we have an accurate estimate of African and European ancestry for each sample (whether it is an individual or a pool of individuals). In practice, we used the ADMIXTURE k=4 estimates, because as described below, they appear to be accurate for Native American populations (with the possible exception of Aleuts as we discuss below). We can then define:
  
  a = % African ancestry in a test sample
  e = % European ancestry in a test sample
  1-a-e = % Native ancestry
  
  For many of our analyses, we are computing f4 statistics, whose values are affected in a known way by European and African admixture. Thus, we can algebraically correct for the effect of recent European or African admixture on the test statistics, obtaining an “Ancestry Subtracted” statistic that is what is expected for the sample if it had no recent European or African ancestry.
  
  The main context in which we compute f4 statistics is in our implementation of the 4 Population Test, to evaluate whether the allele frequency correlation patterns in the data are consistent with the proposed tree ((Unadmixed, Test),(Outgroup1, Outgroup2)), where the Unadmixed population is a set of Native American samples assumed to derive all of their ancestry from the initial population that peopled America, the Test population is another Native American population, and the two outgroups are Asian populations. An f4 statistic consistent with zero suggests that the Unadmixed and Test populations form a clade with no evidence of ancestry from more recent streams of gene flow from Asia. If the Test population harbors recent European or African ancestry, however, a significant deviation of this statistic from zero would be expected, making it difficult to interpret the results. We thus compute a linear combination of f4 statistics that is expected to equal what we would obtain if we had access to the Native American ancestors of the Test population without recent European or African admixture:
  
  S_1=(f_4 (Unadmixed,Test;Out1,Out2)-(a) f_4 (Unadmixed,Yoruba;Out1,Out2)-(e) f_4 (Unadmixed,French;Out1,Out2))/(1-a-e) (S3.1)
  
  Intuitively, this statistic is subtracting the contribution to the f4 statistic that is expected from their proportion a of West African-like ancestry (Yoruba), and their proportion e of West Eurasian-like ancestry (French). We then renormalize by 1/(1-a-e) to obtain the statistic that would be expected if the sample was unadmixed.
  
  A potential concern is that the African and European ancestry in any real Native American test sample is not likely to be from Yoruba and French exactly; instead, it will be from related populations. However, S1 is still expected to have the value we wish to compute if we choose the outgroups to be East Asians or Siberians. The reason is that genetic differences between Yoruba and the true African ancestors, and French and the true European ancestors, are not expected to be correlated to the frequency differences between two East Asian or Siberian outgroups. Specifically, the allele frequency differences are due to history within Africa or Europe, which is not expected to be correlated to allele frequency differences within East Asia and within Siberia.
  
  (iii) Ancestry Subtraction gives results concordant with those on unadmixed samples
  To compare the performance of our three approaches to address the confounder of recent European and African admixture, we computed 48 = 8×6 statistics of the form f4(Unadmixed, Test; Han, San). We choose “Unadmixed” to be one of 8 Native American groups from Meso-America southward that have sample sizes of at least two and for which all samples are inferred to be unadmixed by ADMIXTURE k=4 (Chane, Embera, Guahibo, Guaymi, Karitiana, Kogi, Surui and Waunana). We choose “Test” to be one of 8 Native American populations from Meso-America southward with at least two samples that are entirely unadmixed, and that also have at least two samples that have >5% non-Native admixture according to the ADMIXTURE k=4 analysis (Aymara, Cabecar, Pima, Tepehuano, Wayuu and Zapotec1). This allows us to compare results on admixed and unadmixed samples from the same population.
  
  If the Test population harbors European or West African admixture that we have not corrected, we expect to see a significant deviation of the statistic from zero. For example, f4(Karitiana, French; Han, San), corresponding to the statistic expected for an entirely European-admixed Native American population, is significant at Z = 45 standard errors from zero, and f4(Karitiana, Yoruba; Han, San), which gives the f4-value we would expect for an entirely West African-admixed Native American population, is significant at Z = 101.
  
  Figure S3.1 shows the scatterplots of Z-scores we obtain without Ancestry Subtraction, with Ancestry Subtraction, and with local ancestry masking (Note S4). The x-axis shows data for the unadmixed samples from each Test population, while the y-axis shows the results for the >5% admixed samples from the same populations. We find that:
  • Without Ancestry Subtraction there are significant deviations from zero (|Z|>3) (Fig. S3.1A)
  • With Ancestry Subtraction, there are no residual |Z|-scores >3 (Figure S3.1B)
  • With local ancestry masking (Note S4), there are again no residual |Z|-scores >3 (Figure S3.1C), showing that this method also appears to be appropriately correcting for the admixture.

---

Given the exclusion of Africans from studies like Reich, D. et al (2012), means that we are not really knowing the actual admixture among Africans and Native American that carry the accepted African haplogroups: i.e., haploroups E , L and etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.

Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.
________________________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid

---

1) Clyde where are the 63 human remains samples now from this 49 year old article?
Where is a third party verifying the existence of these remains and the dates?

2) does the term "Africoid" exactly = Negroid?

3) what categories in the chart you are adding up under Tlatilco to arrive at 13.5% Africoid

4) what total percentage does Wiercinski say are Africoid or Negroid or does he say?

5) what is Wiercinski's explanation for why there are different types here as opposed to being all one type?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
@lioness From what I gather,the Americas was populated in two waves: the first bringing in the paleoindians and the next bring in the natives with a mongoloid feature set.

---

.

Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
@lioness From what I gather,the Americas was populated in two waves: the first bringing in the paleoindians and the next bring in the natives with a mongoloid feature set.

---

.

Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

.

---

Can you post that cranial study that proved this again when you have time?

Also do you think that those early Negroid populations in the Americas were short statured Australoid pygmies? Do you think that this is why there are tales of White "giants" (or regular size Mongoloid Asians around 6,000 BC but large to pygmies) coming over and cannibalizing these smaller humans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

.

---

1) what are the haplogroups of the Mongoloids who arrived in the Americas?

2) where are you getting this 6,000 years old figure from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Moors were all over Europe, not just in the South. The Strasbourgs were even Moors.


http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-00-18a.html

---

quote:

---

"The results of the craniometric analysis indicated that the majority of the York population had European origins, but that 11% of the Trentholme Drive and 12% of The Railway study samples were likely of African decent."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

.

---

1) what are the haplogroups of the Mongoloids who arrived in the Americas?

2) where are you getting this 6,000 years old figure from?

---

I haven't seen any papers on this group.

But in Malhi et al, Haplogroup M discovered in prehistoric North America
April 2007Journal of Archaeological Science 34(4):642-648, they said ancient North Americans carried M1. LOL, to confuse people they now call American mtDNA M1, mtDNA D4, to make appear that ancient native Americans did not carry African M1.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The Moors were all over Europe, not just in the South. The Strasbourgs were even Moors.

http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-00-18a.jpg
http://www.beforebc.de/all_europe/02-16-800-00-18a.html

---

Yes, but that doesn't mean they ruled those parts of Europe. Europeans did know about the Moors in Western and Northern parts. We know Britain had a sub population.

quote:

---

"The results of the craniometric analysis indicated that the majority of the York population had European origins, but that 11% of the Trentholme Drive and 12% of The Railway study samples were likely of African decent."

---

(Leach et al. 2009)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ I took out the "[IMG]" but left URL don't need to see that 3x

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

“ At the present moment, almost all the skeletal remains older than 7000 cal yr BP in South and Meso America share the same morphological pattern, differing considerably from the morphological variation that characterizes the actual Native American populations (for an exception to this pattern see Bernardo and Neves 2010).” See Early human occupation of Lagoa Santa, Eastern Central Brazil: Craniometric variation of the initial settlers of South America, pg. 402, https://www.academia.edu/9059431/Early_human_occupation_of_Lagoa_Santa_Eastern_Central_Brazil_Craniometric_variation_of_ta

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

what are the haplogroups of the Mongoloids who arrived in the Americas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I haven't seen any papers on this group.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

“ At the present moment, almost all the skeletal remains older than 7000 cal yr BP in South and Meso America share the same morphological pattern, differing considerably from the morphological variation that characterizes the actual Native American populations (for an exception to this pattern see Bernardo and Neves 2010).” See Early human occupation of Lagoa Santa, Eastern Central Brazil: Craniometric variation of the initial settlers of South America, pg. 402, https://www.academia.edu/9059431/Early_human_occupation_of_Lagoa_Santa_Eastern_Central_Brazil_Craniometric_va

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

what are the haplogroups of the Mongoloids who arrived in the Americas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I haven't seen any papers on this group.

---

what are the haplogroups of modern people, considered of Mongoloid descent, referred to by geneticists as Native American?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ I took out the "[IMG]" but left URL don't need to see that 3x

---

LOL. You are such a white supremacist. You had no right to take images out of my post, except for the fact you want to maintain a lie. You know a picture talks louder than words. lmao

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

“ At the present moment, almost all the skeletal remains older than 7000 cal yr BP in South and Meso America share the same morphological pattern, differing considerably from the morphological variation that characterizes the actual Native American populations (for an exception to this pattern see Bernardo and Neves 2010).” See Early human occupation of Lagoa Santa, Eastern Central Brazil: Craniometric variation of the initial settlers of South America, pg. 402, https://www.academia.edu/9059431/Early_human_occupation_of_Lagoa_Santa_Eastern_Central_Brazil_Craniometric_

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Mongoloids do not arrive in Americas until 6kya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

what are the haplogroups of the Mongoloids who arrived in the Americas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I haven't seen any papers on this group.

---

what are the haplogroups of modern people, considered of Mongoloid descent, referred to by geneticists as Native American?

---

Look them up yourself. You are not honest in any debate.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The first Native Americans were not mongoloid people. Africans have been in the Americas for 100,000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
what are the haplogroups of the Mongoloid
people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The major American Indian male lineages include R1, C,D and Q3.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The fact remains that the idea that there had been no mixture between the various population before 1492 is groundless and therefore highlight the fallacy of the proposed identification of continental populations based on genetic population theory. This is why geneticist stopped trying to find archaeological data to support their Bayesian statistical assumptions. There is none.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
realize that a skull cannot be proved to be African by taking measurements of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The fact remains that the idea that there had been no mixture between the various population before 1492 is groundless and therefore highlight the fallacy of the proposed identification of continental populations based on genetic population theory. This is why geneticist stopped trying to find archaeological data to support their Bayesian statistical assumptions. There is none.

---

Yes, it's true that Moors had presence in Germany, but not as a ruling class. We have no evidence for this.

I have not heard or read of the claim that there was no migration going on before 1492, which caused for mixture and admixture amongst people.

In terms of people (Black Indians) who have been in the Americans for 100Kyar, what are the subclades and SNP's? And what was the first dispersion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Geber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

The fact remains that the idea that there had been no mixture between the various population before 1492 is groundless and therefore highlight the fallacy of the proposed identification of continental populations based on genetic population theory. This is why geneticist stopped trying to find archaeological data to support their Bayesian statistical assumptions. There is none.

---

Yes, it's true that Moors had presence in Germany, but not as a ruling class. We have no evidence for this.

I have not heard or read of the claim that there was no migration going on before 1492, which caused for mixture and admixture amongst people.

In terms of people (Black Indians) who have been in the Americans for 100Kyar, what are the subclades and SNP's? And what was the first dispersion.

---

Reich (2018) wrote that “the ancestors of East Asian, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work”.

He also noted that "Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real. "

The interaction between Eurasian and Africans in Europe and Central Asia, however, makes it impossible for geneticists to claim that there were three distinct continental populations. Absent corroborating archaeological evidence that the populations were “isolated” until recently makes the claim by some geneticists that although race is a “social construct”, genomics can identify varied races is false.

Reference:

Reich, D. (2018). How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of “Race”. New York Times 23 March 2019, downloaded 12/4/2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Africans have been in the Americas for 100,000 years

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Africans have been in the Americas for 100,000 years

---

stop making up stuff, no human remains even one fifth as old as that have been found

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Again,

no human remains even one fifth of 100,000 years old

have been found

which also means no human morphology, no DNA

________________________________

Additionally if you look at all the non-Africans in the Northern hemisphere, if they started out being Africans it is probably in much less than 100,000 years of living in a new environment that they transformed into non-Africans

---

When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?

The original Ausatraloid populations that originally populated the Americas I can almost ascertain do not have what is typolyzed to an arbitrarily defined landmass known as "African". None the less their phenotype has been defined as "Black" or "Negroid". They have been treated as such in reality. At no point were Aboriginals treated as "Orientals" because of their relative genetic distance to them. This is a typical white disingenuous argument meant to move the goal post, and is what Diop predicted the White researchers would do in the future. Switch from focusing on the relevant measureable phenotype to an arbitrarily defined genotype. So these Black peoples were the first people in the Americas.

This was followed by waves of other Africans and a Mongoloid migration in the continent. These waves included Pygmies or Twa people, followed by Mongoloid peoples, and then waves from various Africoid peoples from civilizations of Africa and others. These African skeletons found in the early Olmec sites referenced in my post on the last page will undoubtedly yield African DNA. The Hudson Bay skulls would undoubtedly yield African DNA.

You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?



Kemet was defined from Nubia through the worship of Ausarian religion. This Ausarian religion in my opinion partially transcended to the Americas, and we find this in various cultural phenomena in the Americas and interior Africa.
 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Again,

no human remains even one fifth of 100,000 years old

have been found

which also means no human morphology, no DNA

________________________________

Additionally if you look at all the non-Africans in the Northern hemisphere, if they started out being Africans it is probably in much less than 100,000 years of living in a new environment that they transformed into non-Africans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:


You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?

---

DNA is pretty good at determining what continent one's ancestors come from and to an extent particular region. People often discover multiple ancestries they have, some they didn't know about

African Ancestry .com is Black owned

https://africanancestry.com

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

When does DNA have a bearing on phenotype as defined by Western standards? If the overwhelming majority of DNA on this Earth belongs to ONE particular "race" then why on Earth are you asking for DNA as though it will negate what and how race has been traditionally defined, and may I add also has had real repercussions in the World?

---

DNA is pretty good at determining what continent one's ancestors come from and to an extent particular region. People often discover multiple ancestries they have, some they didn't know about

African Ancestry .com is Black owned

https://africanancestry.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:


You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?

---

you are showing us a DNA chart here for some reason.
Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
The Hudson Bay skulls would undoubtedly yield African DNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

The original Ausatraloid populations that originally populated the Americas I can almost ascertain do not have what is typolyzed to an arbitrarily defined landmass known as "African". None the less their phenotype has been defined as "Black" or "Negroid". They have been treated as such in reality. At no point were Aboriginals treated as "Orientals" because of their relative genetic distance to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

African skeletons found in the early Olmec sites referenced in my post on the last page will undoubtedly yield African DNA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Reich (2018) wrote that “the ancestors of East Asian, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work”.

He also noted that "Groundbreaking advances in DNA sequencing technology have been made over the last two decades. These advances enable us to measure with exquisite accuracy what fraction of an individual’s genetic ancestry traces back to, say, West Africa 500 years ago — before the mixing in the Americas of the West African and European gene pools that were almost completely isolated for the last 70,000 years. With the help of these tools, we are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real. "

The interaction between Eurasian and Africans in Europe and Central Asia, however, makes it impossible for geneticists to claim that there were three distinct continental populations. Absent corroborating archaeological evidence that the populations were “isolated” until recently makes the claim by some geneticists that although race is a “social construct”, genomics can identify varied races is false.

Reference:

Reich, D. (2018). How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of “Race”. New York Times 23 March 2019, downloaded 12/4/2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
The Hudson Bay skulls would undoubtedly yield African DNA.

---

what Hudson Bay skulls?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

The original Ausatraloid populations that originally populated the Americas I can almost ascertain do not have what is typolyzed to an arbitrarily defined landmass known as "African". None the less their phenotype has been defined as "Black" or "Negroid". They have been treated as such in reality. At no point were Aboriginals treated as "Orientals" because of their relative genetic distance to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

African skeletons found in the early Olmec sites referenced in my post on the last page will undoubtedly yield African DNA

---

So how did you know they didn't have native Australian DNA? You are showing a chart of E1b1a

---

Why are you playing dumb as if you have not already been presented with source listing the Olmec skeletons specifically as African. You sat there trolling Dr. Winters on this for the entire first page, now you don't know that they were African?? What is your deal?

Also "Hull Bay" (Virgin Islands) skeletons



 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Why are you playing dumb as if you have not already been presented with source listing the Olmec skeletons specifically as African. You sat there trolling Dr. Winters on this for the entire first page, now you don't know that they were African?? What is your deal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Using W.W. Howell’s measurements researchers determined the PaleoIndians were of African, Australian or Melanesian origin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?


.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

Why are you playing dumb as if you have not already been presented with source listing the Olmec skeletons specifically as African. You sat there trolling Dr. Winters on this for the entire first page, now you don't know that they were African?? What is your deal?

---

No, arguing with evidence is not trolling and you don't know what you are talking about

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:


Using W.W. Howell’s measurements researchers determined the PaleoIndians were of African, Australian or Melanesian origin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:

You also did not have a reply to the fact that an African disorder that was first seen the interior Africa around 8,000 BC was found in ancient Mayan remains. The skull that this was found in will again undoubtedly yield African DNA. How do we know this?


.


.

---

the DNA of the Olmecs has been tested ask Clyde about it


.

---

If the Olmec skulls show distinct racial types then those distinct racial types need to be profiled SPECIFICALLY to answer that question. But western science is too disingenuous to directly answer that question. Instead the will only acknowledge the other 85% of the skulls (which would be the average), and say well the "average" DNA is this and that, while hiding from that 13% which is what the real contention is about. On this website you are the guardian of white academic BS.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
 
^^ So...you do you think that white scientist will use their resources to DNA test this skeleton to unravel their centuries old white supremacist lie of "discovering" this landmass? Do you know that legal ramifications of acknowledging the Blacks of this land mass as indigenous? There is great political incentive to hide these facts for whites who have stolen this land and resources. White acknowledging this would mean that they could be forcibly removed from parts of the Americas in the restitution of our people and recovery of our land and resources.

[ 28. September 2021, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: the lioness, ]
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Yes I did discuss Olmec DNA, yet you (lioness ) closed the thread so it can not be elaborated on. See: http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=013059

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big O:
^^ So...you do you think that white scientist will use their resources to DNA test this skeleton to unravel their centuries old white supremacist lie of "discovering" this landmass? Do you know that legal ramifications of acknowledging the Blacks of this land mass as indigenous? There is great political incentive to hide these facts for whites who have stolen this land and resources. White acknowledging this would mean that they could be forcibly removed from parts of the Americas in the restitution of our people and recovery of our land and resources.

---