It must be clear that ancient Brazilians want no part of the EU
I was following up the story about Luzia and learned that late 2018 some researchers announced that DNA studies indicated that the skull model was wrong and that Luiza was not related to Africans or Australians.
quote:In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian physical appearance of Luzia. Using DNA sequencing, the results showed that Luzia had Mongoloid features.[24] The bust of Luzia displaying African features was done in the 1990's. "However, skull shape isn't a reliable marker of ancestrality or geographic origin. Genetics is the best basis for this type of inference," Strauss explained. "The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia's people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today's Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia's people were entirely Amerindian."[25]
I am not an expert in this area, but if the skeleton (ie the skull) does not match what the DNA predicts then their models for predicting skeletal form from DNA must be wrong or inadequate.
I can't help feeling that 150 million people of African descent living in Brazil must be strong factor in these contortions, not to mention that the Negroid form is not restricted to African people, as Negritos like the Jarawa show. Apparently the skulls don't conform to the true negro stereotype.
I have to admit that I have no knowledge of DNA analysis. More knowledgeable members of ES can look into it and present us with their interpretations and conclusions.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
wikipedia
Neves' conclusions have been challenged by research done by anthropologists Rolando González-José, Frank Williams and William Armelagos, who have shown in their studies that the cranio-facial variability could just be due to genetic drift and other factors affecting cranio-facial plasticity in Native Americans.[19][20][21]
A comparison in 2005 of Lagoa Santa specimens with modern Aimoré people of the same region also showed strong affinities, leading Neves to classify the Aimoré as Paleo-Indians
__________________
The Aimoré (Aymore, Aimboré) are one of several South American peoples of eastern Brazil called Botocudo in Portuguese (from botoque, a plug), in allusion to the wooden disks or tembetás worn in their lips and ears. Some called themselves Nac-nanuk or Nac-poruk, meaning "sons of the soil".[2] The last Aimoré group to retain their language are the Krenak.
The new face of South American people ScienceDaily November 12, 2018
“Surprisingly, the members of this first lineage of South Americans left no identifiable descendants among today’s Amerindians,” he said. “Some 9,000 years ago their DNA disappears completely from the fossil samples and is replaced by DNA from the first migratory wave, prior to the Clovis culture. All living Amerindians are descendants of this first wave. We don’t yet know why the genetic stock of the Lagoa Santa people disappeared.”
One possible reason for the disappearance of DNA from the second migration is that it was diluted in the DNA of the Amerindians who are descendants of the first wave and cannot be identified by existing methods of genetic analysis.
According to Tábita Hünemeier, a geneticist at the University of São Paulo’s Bioscience Institute (IB-USP) who took part in the research, “one of the main results of the study was the identification of Luzia’s people as genetically related to the Clovis culture, which dismantles the idea of two biological components and the possibility that there were two migrations to the Americas, one with African traits and the other with Asian traits.”
A new bust has replaced Luzia in the Brazilian scientific pantheon. Caroline Wilkinson, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK and a disciple of Neave, has produced a facial reconstruction of one of the individuals exhumed at Lapa do Santo. The reconstruction was based on a retrodeformed digital model of the skull. -___________________________________________
Caroline Wilkinson
Posted by A Habsburg Agenda (Member # 21824) on :
How about Naia from Mexico, and her facial reconstruction which strongly resembles a contemporary Khoisan woman?
How soon can we expect a new reconstruction of Naia based on a retrodeformed digital model of the skull?
We eagerly await it. These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!!
I am beginning to develop this funny feeling that some researchers of myriad ethnicities are retrodeforming the data they present to support their conclusions!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
"Retrodeforming" a new word sounds like they go back retroactively and deform something
It may not be the best word invention to describe what it means
____________
retrodeformation
A process that produces the original form of a deformed object (or, more often, its image)
Many fossil specimens exhibit deformations caused by taphonomic processes. Due to these deformations, even important specimens have to be excluded from morphometric analyses, impoverishing an already poor paleontological record. Techniques to retrodeform and virtually restore damaged (i.e. deformed) specimens are available, but these methods genenerally imply the use of a sparse set of bilateral landmarks, ignoring the fact that the distribution and amount of control points directly affects the result of the retrodeformation. We propose a method.....
There are five main stages of taphonomy: disarticulation, dispersal, accumulation, fossilization, and mechanical alteration.[4] The first stage, disarticulation, occurs as the organism decays and the bones are no longer held together by the flesh and tendons of the organism. Dispersal is the separation of pieces of an organism caused by natural events (i.e. floods, scavengers etc.). Accumulation occurs when there is a buildup of organic and/or inorganic materials in one location (scavengers or human behavior). When mineral rich groundwater permeates organic materials and fills the empty spaces, a fossil is formed. The final stage of taphonomy is mechanical alteration; these are the processes that physically alter the remains (i.e. freeze-thaw, compaction, transport, burial).[5] It should be added that these "stages" are not only successive, they interplay.
_____________________________
Reconstruction of Luzia skull by Caroline Wilkinson
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: How about Naia from Mexico, and her facial reconstruction which strongly resembles a contemporary Khoisan woman?
How soon can we expect a new reconstruction of Naia based on a retrodeformed digital model of the skull?
We eagerly await it. These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!!
I am beginning to develop this funny feeling that some researchers of myriad ethnicities are retrodeforming the data they present to support their conclusions!!
In reconstructions the nose and lips can't be predicted with high accuracy because the cartilage of the nose no longer exists in these bare skulls and lips are fleshy and could vary underneath similar bone structure. Also the jaw is missing on this skull. Many Asian people have crossover features with Africans but are more distant form Africans genetically than Europeans are. Another thing missing form these ancient bare skulls is that the hair type can't be determined
Anyway I'm not getting the intent of your comment.
you say
" These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!! "
Yet you argue with the newer interpretation of the skull that said the same thing - not African.
You say
" These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!! "
yet you put up a photo suggesting the reconstruction of Naia looks like an African
" Naia’s skull shape does not look like those of Native Americans, but the Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA D1 haplogroup directly links her to the modern Native peoples of the Americas."
Haplogroup D likely arose between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal 60,000 years before the present.[1] It is a descendant of haplogroup M.
It is found in Northeast Asia (including Siberia). Its subclade D1 (along with D2 and D4) is one of five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, the other being A,B,C and X.[2] Haplogroup D is also found quite frequently in central Asia,[3] where it makes up the second most common mtDNA clade (after H). Haplogroup D also appears at low frequency in northeastern Europe and southwestern Asia.
tudies of Korean mtDNA lineages have shown[4] that there is a high frequency of Haplogroup D4, which is the modal mtDNA haplogroup among Siberians. Haplogroup D4 is also the modal mtDNA haplogroup among Koreans.
Haplogroup D constitutes 5/100 of 1% of the mtDNA testing population at FTDNA. This is partly due to the fact that those of European ancestry tend to test DNA much more than other persons do, at least at FTDNA
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: It must be clear that ancient Brazilians want no part of the EU
ROTFLMAO
Aw God, this post made my day. Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
Aren't certain Native American peoples in South America supposed to have admixture from a "Population Y" in East Asia that also contributed to Aboriginal Australians' ancestry? Maybe that accounts for the perceived "Australoidness" of those Paleo-American specimens?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I only read a little of the OP It immediately took me to the case of the Ancient One. His phenotype looks Ainu. His genotype is original North American.
In the Ancient One's day there were N Amer (Indians) who looked Ainu (pre-Japanese).
Now,thx 2 Luzia, we know there was a 'genetic Mongol' with AustrAfrMela looks about the face.
Data synthesis overrides bias expectations favoring one over the other and it reveals unexpected gene / flesh association.
Race is one complicated reality whether biological or physical, both or neither, something else or non-existant outside society.
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeY Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeY
Retouched means something already made was changed. That is not the case here The earliest Luzia reconstruction was made 20 years ago in 1999. ago. The later one was made by using more recent methods 2018 from scratch not by retouching the earlier reconstruction.
.
Luzia, by Richard Neave 1999
. ______________________________________________
Caroline Wilkinson 2018
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeY
Estudo contradiz teoria de povoamento da América e sugere que rosto de Luzia era diferente do que se pensava novembro 8, 2018
(translated from Portuguese) Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought November 8, 2018 admin
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years. Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America. Researchers at the University of Sao Paulo and Harvard released on Thursday (8) a discovery that contradicts the main theory of settlement of America. With the help of DNA extraction from buried fossils for over ten thousand years, they were able to evaluate the genetic code of the fossils to find out who our ancestors are. “Until very recently it was virtually technically impossible to extract DNA from very old bones. Because in the tropical environment that we live there is the degradation of organic matter in general and this also applies to DNA. It is very intense, ”said André Strauss, Professor at the USP Museum of Archeology and Ethnology. The work was done jointly by USP, Harvard University and the Max Planck Institute of Germany. The scientists studied nine human bones in the Lagoa Santa region of Minas Gerais. From the same archaeological sites of Luzia, the bones of a woman who would have lived more than 11,000 years ago and is considered the first Brazilian. 'New' features of the people of Luzia Simulation shows new features of Luzia TV globe The Luzia fossil - the oldest human in South America - was found in the rubble of the National Museum in Rio and had disappeared in the fire that destroyed the museum in early September. There are two theories for the arrival of humans to the American continents. The first says that we are descended from East Asian populations that crossed the Bering Strait - at the time, it still connected to North America - and descended to South America. But in the 1990s, a new theory was created. That the American territories were also populated by even older humans, the first who had already left Africa, crossed Asia, and would have come straight to the Americas until they reached Brazil. The idea came about because the researchers studied the measurements of Luzia's skull and found it to be wider than those of the Indians and more similar to those of Africans. But the result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different. With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense. “Genetic data point to the existence of a major migratory wave with possible secondary events involved. But roughly speaking, the scenario we have today is that 98% of Amerindian ancestry can be traced to a single reaches in America. In other words, the people of Luzia have come to America along with all the other populations that came from the Asian continent, ”said Strauss. Reconstruction of Luzia's face
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeY
If you look at recent reconstructions of ancient people by professional forensic artists they results still have significant differences so I don't take that much stock in them. With a bare skull the skin color, hair nose and lips have a lot of speculation due to real world differences of phenotypic traits, muscle, flesh and hair and eye fold type that overlay similar skulls.
2018 Luzia reconstruction, by Caroline Wilkinson
Luzia skull In my opinion this reconstruction does not look "Mongoloid" at all except for a slight prognathism The eye fold type would be speculation. However the forensic artist did not choose a Mongoloid eye fold. The nose is not flat and does not look typically mongoloid. The man looks like a North American or Asian Indian mixed with an African to me. He might also pass for a modern Egyptian or Tamil.
A lot of features cross over. Could be a lot of people and the skin tone pretty dark.
But it does look less stereotypical African to me. Is it more accurate than the 1999 reconstruction? I don't know. I don't think these reconstructions are that reliable.
So is this an example of the Max Plank institute saying to themselves "this reconstruction is a little too sub-saharan for our tastes can we do something about that?"
maybe
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
South African, Central American, Australian
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Aren't certain Native American peoples in South America supposed to have admixture from a "Population Y" in East Asia that also contributed to Aboriginal Australians' ancestry? Maybe that accounts for the perceived "Australoidness" of those Paleo-American specimens?
Not just South Americans but Aleutian Islanders off the Alaskan coast also carry traces of this admixture as well. Such ancestry may account for the Australoid appearance or it may not. We won't know for sure until we get a better assessment of the crania of the Beringian peoples who were ancestral to Paleo-Americans while at the same time assessing the skulls of the so-called 'Population Y' or as I like to call them Basal East Asian.
Speaking of which, have you read the Nature paper last year on the Beringian children? It is very interesting and sheds some light on to the peopling of the Americas.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I only read a little of the OP It immediately took me to the case of the Ancient One. His phenotype looks Ainu. His genotype is original North American.
In the Ancient One's day there were N Amer (Indians) who looked Ainu (pre-Japanese).
Now,thx 2 Luzia, we know there was a 'genetic Mongol' with AustrAfrMela looks about the face.
Data synthesis overrides bias expectations favoring one over the other and it reveals unexpected gene / flesh association.
Race is one complicated reality whether biological or physical, both or neither, something else or non-existant outside society.
Right you are! This is the exact reason why I am very much interested in the ancestral populations of the Americas. For one, they connect Amerindians to ancestors in Asia, but as you say the cranio-morphological findings fly right in the face of long standing racial paradigms and forms a blatant paradox. I try to tell Africanists to pay attention to this because this holds ramifications for early African populations specifically in northeast Africa who also show ties to the early peopling of Eurasia.
Meanwhile we'll have to put up with peoples modern ethnic projections onto ancient peoples:
Posted by A Habsburg Agenda (Member # 21824) on :
The model of Luiza is based on a skull, which is an expression of the DNA found in it, if any. The skull was associated with Negroid and Australoid features and did not match the Mongoloid type (or whatever) associated with what I would assume to be contemporary Native Americans.
The whole notion of retrodeforming the skull to create a new model of Luzia looked is so agonizingly cringeworthy it makes me painfully uncomfortable. I even feel sorry for the academics who came up with this concept.
There are few questions to ask. Okay they found some DNA in ancient skeletons similar to Luzia.
The argument is that Luzia's DNA if any, or those of the lineage associated with her can't be found in the current Native American population. Luzia is related to an earlier population, Clovis or whatever, which isn't found in the current Native American population.
1. Were any reasonably intact skulls found in the set of skeletons which was used to create the new model of Luzia?
2. If intact DNA can't be extracted from Luzia, how did they relate her to other skeletons which may or may not have provided DNA to the point of creating a new model of a her appearance?
3. Through what rules, statistical correlations, associations, extrapolations did Richard Neave use to create the original appearance of Luzia? Where those rules unfounded? Would he have come to that form even if no association with Africans was made?
It is one thing to say that there is no DNA suggestive of African, Australoid or Melanesian origins, but to use that conclusion to invent a new skull and appearance when the physical skull in your hand indicates otherwise is just cringe.
This sounds like scientists making some discovery and being enticed or suborned into making a racially and social pleasing statement which can in no way be related or based or their discoveries. Funding must be secured.
So the closing conclusion goes this way to Amerindians, which includes the $5 Indians..
1. Luzia and her people may have been the first settlers in America, but their lineage died out anyway. So you can go to bed happily known that you have no devalued blood from Africans, Australians and Melanesians running in your veins.
2. The evidence suggest that Luzia was not African or Australian, so even if by some remote chance some of you are their descendants, you can be can be assured that you have no deprecated blood running through you.
3. Now we can come to the 12000 pound elephant in the room. Those 150 million Afro-descendientes waiting on the sideline to claim aboriginal status, and thus displacing you on the grounds that their cousins were the first settlers in America (God forbid if some of those here can claim direct descent from them). Us whites have nothing to fear from them now. (We are not so worried as your Native American political influence is quite minimal). All will be at peace. You Native Americans have nothing to fear from them displacing you, as for us whites we are so relieved that this matter as been scientifically settled with the appropriate matching propaganda.
Now where is xxyman when we need him?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
DNA cannot and does not change a bone's shape.
The Amcient One's Amerind DNA has no effect on his Ainu skull.
Luzia's EastAsian DNA it simply cannot alter even one non-metric AustrAfrMela feature of her face bones.
Unbiased science must accept the fact there were once East Asians who looked like today's Oceania blacks and that they crossed to the Americas via Beringia too.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ One element of retrodeforamtion is "puzzle piecing". That is to estimate missing pieces. As we see here the lower jaw is missing.
More details on Luzia
wikipedia
Luzia woman
(excerpts)
Luzia was originally discovered in 1974 in a rock shelter by a joint French-Brazilian expedition that was working not far from Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
There were no other human remains at the site. New dating of the bones announced in 2013 confirmed that at an age of 10,030 ± 60 14C yr BP (11,243–11,710 cal BP), Luzia is one of the most ancient American human skeletons ever discovered.[9] Forensics have determined that Luzia died in her early 20s. Although flint tools were found nearby, hers were the only human remains found in Vermelha Cave.
The fossil of Luzia was believed to have been destroyed when the National Museum burned,(2018) according to officials,[10][11][12] but firefighters later discovered a human skull within the burned museum.[4] On October 19, 2018 it was announced that the Luzia skull was indeed found, but in a fragmented state.
Burned National Museum, Rio De Janeiro
_________________
The 11,500-year-old Luzia skeleton was found in a grotto in Lapa Vermelha, Pedro Leopoldo, in the state of Minas Gerais. Brazil
Close by is Lagoa Santa(Holy Lagoon) also in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
The Danish palaeontologist Peter Wilhelm Lund, known as the father of Brazilian paleontology, discovered a cave in Lagoa Santa filled with human bones (15 skeletons) and megafauna (very large mammals) dating to the Pleistocene era.
Early human dispersals within the Americas 2018 Research Article J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar1 et al
Within that branch, Spirit Cave is closest toAnzick1, whereas Lagoa Santa is closest to southern SNA groups. Two of the Lagoa Santa individuals carry the same mtDNA haplogroup(D4h3a) as Anzick1 (Montana), yet three of the Lagoa Santa individuals harbor the same Y chromosome haplogroup as the Spirit Cave genome (Q-M848)(Nevada)
Posted by A Habsburg Agenda (Member # 21824) on :
^^^
I am not that interested in the DNA. It is about the skull(s).
Did any of the other skeletons found provide intact skulls or fragments which could be used to model the appearance of those people?
Do you notice how the reconstruction doesn't resemble any race in particular?
This sounds like Star Trek technology. Take a sample of DNA, see what creatures on Earth must have had that DNA and project 400 million years into the future?
As a geek I have to believe. I have to believe that one day we will develop the technology to construct images of organisms from samples of their DNA.
I hope the researchers haven't been watching too much Star Trek, but that shouldn't put a dampener on our hope for future technology.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Unbiased science must accept the fact there were once East Asians who looked like today's Oceania blacks and that they crossed to the Americas via Beringia too.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
I don't doubt for a moment that the ancestors of all eastern non-African populations (including East Asians and Native Americans) would still have been dark-skinned ("black") people. However, if one of the papers Djehuti cited earlier is right that ancestral Native Americans went through a standstill in Beringia for several millennia prior to moving into North and South America, I would assume they had already evolved a certain level of depigmentation and other Arctic adaptations that their descendants would have inherited. The same could probably be said of their brethren in northeastern Asia who went on to evolve into the modern Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Austronesians, etc. I don't know if the first Native Americans would have arrived still looking like what you and I would call "black" in terms of soft-tissue traits.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda:
Do you notice how the reconstruction doesn't resemble any race in particular?
Many people don't fit neatly into contrived racial categories. Many anthropologists have abandoned these categories.
9,000 year old decapitated skull with a pair of amputated hands was found in a cave in Lagoa Santa in Brazil
Pieces of same Lagoa Santa skull reassembled
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Unbiased science must accept the fact there were once East Asians who looked like today's Oceania blacks and that they crossed to the Americas via Beringia too.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
I don't doubt for a moment that the ancestors of all eastern non-African populations (including East Asians and Native Americans) would still have been dark-skinned ("black") people. However, if one of the papers Djehuti cited earlier is right that ancestral Native Americans went through a standstill in Beringia for several millennia prior to moving into North and South America, I would assume they had already evolved a certain level of depigmentation and other Arctic adaptations that their descendants would have inherited. The same could probably be said of their brethren in northeastern Asia who went on to evolve into the modern Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Austronesians, etc. I don't know if the first Native Americans would have arrived still looking like what you and I would call "black" in terms of soft-tissue traits.
Actually there are quite a handful of indigenous peoples in the Americas that possessed features that are typically associated with so-called “Black” peoples and are still dark as Africans. Common to misbelief indigenous peoples are quite diverse in phenotype and do not need “race mixing” to explain how they look. They are apart of the same genetic family and they carried with them the same type of diversity, that is in Asia. Variation exist with indigenous peoples because of genetic drift and adaptation to their northern and tropical climate, thus the reason why some may look like this:
Inuit men
While others may look like this:
And remarkably some look like this:
The earliest migrations the into the Americas wasn’t across the Bering Strait bridge per se, but was along the coast of the Americas.
People who generally took this path may have contained some of their archaic features and moved into tropical and subtropical climates in the Americas, while others that remained in the northern climate may have some features that would be commonly known of Indigenous peoples.
An example of this contained phenotype are the Californian Indians whose features are commonly associated with those in the Pacific:
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
You're neglecting forensics in favor of antiblack bias. Your response is nonsequitor. It's YOU assuming a simplistic 'either or' scenario and confusing color for features.
Strike it from the record and still it remains in jurors minds.
This is what I said. • the Ainu phenotype, Amerind genotype, Ancient One • the Oceania phenotype, East Asian genotype, Luzia rep early First Americans despite bigotted racial expectations.
Special pleading what black is. Omg 😱 Ha ha, ho ho, hee hee rotflmrbao
You ytes love doing that yet you have no doubts what a yellow or a white looks like from face bones.
Forensic racial anthropology, not you, defines what black yellow and white are. Nonmetrics makes Luzia an Oceanic type. All your wishology can't change face bone facts and you studied anthropology in university so I cant believe you don't know better.
Do I hafta post the ballistics? Karen Ramey Burns Forensic Anthropology Training Manual Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc (2013) pp 222-238
Black is color not phenotype.
• negroid • mongoloid • caucasoid are phenotypes not colors. Same for australoid, etc.
Stop trying to confuse people that negroid and black are synonymous. They aren't.
There are dark, if no black, caucasoids. There are yellow, white, and black mongoloids. It don't matter what you do or don't call black.
I'm talking phenotype not color. Luiza was an australoid/oceanic phenotype by skull and we know the range of soft tissue traits that properly apply. Doesn't matter if she was as black as a Melanesian or white as a northern Mongolian. That's not the issue so don't sidetrack with colour distraction. And don't act like Luzia eclipses the Ancient One. Again, no 'either or' simplicities
Reconstructors' racial bias is evident. Examine Luzia's skull between forehead and base of nose. The new version flat out invents a brow and nasal bridge unseen on the skull.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
I don't doubt for a moment that the ancestors of all eastern non-African populations (including East Asians and Native Americans) would still have been dark-skinned ("black") people. However, if one of the papers Djehuti cited earlier is right that ancestral Native Americans went through a standstill in Beringia for several millennia prior to moving into North and South America, I would assume they had already evolved a certain level of depigmentation and other Arctic adaptations that their descendants would have inherited. The same could probably be said of their brethren in northeastern Asia who went on to evolve into the modern Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Austronesians, etc. I don't know if the first Native Americans would have arrived still looking like what you and I would call "black" in terms of soft-tissue traits.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: The model of Luzia is based on a skull, which is an expression of the DNA found in it, if any. The skull was associated with Negroid and Australoid features and did not match the Mongoloid type (or whatever) associated with what I would assume to be contemporary Native Americans
Again you fail to realize that phenotype which is an expression of genes is NOT the same as genetic ancestry!
DNA retrieval from Luzia's skull is impossible because the skull has completely fossilized. However, DNA has been extracted and tested from skeletal remains from around the same region of Brazil contemporary to Luzia and DNA has also been tested from Naia girl of Mexico who is even older. These results show that despite the differences in morphology they are genetically ancestral to today's Native Americans!
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yes but the Max Planx institute literally changed the reconstructions because they felt the phenotype associated with it was not right for the genotype. There was literally no other reason to change the reconstruction.
To me it just shows how BS facial reconstructions are, given that a new company and artist can change it based on a whim.
I dont like to sound paranoid and conspiratorial but it seems like an Agenda is being pushed. I could be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: The model of Luzia is based on a skull, which is an expression of the DNA found in it, if any. The skull was associated with Negroid and Australoid features and did not match the Mongoloid type (or whatever) associated with what I would assume to be contemporary Native Americans
Again you fail to realize that phenotype which is an expression of genes is NOT the same as genetic ancestry!
DNA retrieval from Luzia's skull is impossible because the skull has completely fossilized. However, DNA has been extracted and tested from skeletal remains from around the same region of Brazil contemporary to Luzia and DNA has also been tested from Naia girl of Mexico who is even older. These results show that despite the differences in morphology they are genetically ancestral to today's Native Americans!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I only read a little of the OP It immediately took me to the case of the Ancient One. His phenotype looks Ainu.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Black is color not phenotype.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The Ancient One: genetically ancestral to North American Indians, racial biased phenotype bigots be damned.
Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
see how the top of the nose opening on the Luzia skull comes to a sharp point? That is only on one side because the bone is thin there and a shard broken off. If you look at the part next to the higher sharp point it is lower. That is where the real opening started at the lower point.
Like this one >
Australian aboriginal skull type, model
However looking at the first view of the Luzia and this other one >>
This does not seems to have as thick bulging brow ridges as the Australian model skull. It also resembles some African skulls and they have less prominent brow ridges than Australians
Luzia cast from skull
A little bulgier looking here
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
DNA retrieval from Luzia's skull is impossible because the skull has completely fossilized.
I was looking for a reference on that
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: [QB] It must be clear that ancient Brazilians want no part of the EU
They are pretty similar looking. Who is his woman?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yes but the Max Planx institute literally changed the reconstructions because they felt the phenotype associated with it was not right for the genotype. There was literally no other reason to change the reconstruction.
To me it just shows how BS facial reconstructions are, given that a new company and artist can change it based on a whim.
I don't like to sound paranoid and conspiratorial but it seems like an Agenda is being pushed. I could be wrong.
Oh I see now. They're doing the same thing that's been done for reconstructions of ancient Egyptians. Recall how many recons were made of King Tut-- 8 or 9? Maybe more? And more recently the Younger Lady previously called 'Nefertiti'.
This is why I've never been a big fan of facial reconstructions unless the scientists doing them are double-blinded to exclude bias. Forensic anthropologist and facial reconstruction expert Caroline Wilkinson concisely explains the issue in her 2010 paper here. Basically, she notes the problem of experts taking artistic license more liberally when they are not double-blinded i.e. not knowing about the ethnic background of the subject they are working with. For example, when forensic artists are given crania with no information they tend to be more careful in their guesswork and don’t tend to project their own biases. This is why early reconstruction of King Tut or the Younger Lady not knowing who the skulls were, guessed that these were the skulls of African individuals and tend to portray them as such but teams who knew the identities gave rather white-wash versions.
In the case of the Paleo-Indian skulls, I think the first versions tend to be better because although there was some bias in regards to what their features looked like—European in the case of Kennewick Man or African in the case of Luzia, there’s no denying that these individuals did indeed possess such features.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Recall the Lagoa Santa man called Apiuna:
His and other prehistoric folk of South America were indeed tested and shown ancestral ties to modern Native Americans.
And yet the findings of the 2005 Neves & Hubbe cranial study still holds true: Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
Yet the genetics does not match the alleged craniometric affinities.
Early Americans moved into prehistoric South America in at least three migratory waves, a study proposes. Ancestral people who crossed from Siberia into Alaska first gave rise to groups that settled North America (gray arrows). The first wave of North Americans (blue) were related to Clovis people, represented by a 12,600-year-old toddler from Montana called Anzick-1. They moved into South America at least 11,000 years ago, followed by a second wave (green) whose descendants contributed most of the indigenous ancestry among South Americans today. A third migration wave (yellow) from a group that lived near California’s Channel Island moved into the Central Andes about 4,200 years ago. Dotted areas indicate that people there today still have that genetic ancestry.
quote:Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
As was brought up many times in this forum there are indeed modern Indigenous Americans whose complexions are dark enough to be labeled as 'black'. So if the Paleo-Indians were that dark or something approaching it wouldn't surprise me. I am still of the opinion that one of the earliest if not the earliest waves of migration into the Americas from Asia took place along a coastal route south of Beringia if not a direct Pacific passage from Oceania itself.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The Ancient One: genetically ancestral to North American Indians, racial biased phenotype bigots be damned.
Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
My assumption has been that at least part of the lighter skin found in most Native Americans today was inherited from their common ancestors with Northeast Asians. That's why I haven't been so crazy for the claim that they were still "black" upon moving into the Americas from Beringia. I would be more open to that argument if one could show that the relatively light skin in Natives today evolved separately from what you see in their East Asian relatives.
That said, I wonder what ethnic group this individual (whose photo Baalberith posted) comes from? I know Euronuts like to use suntanning to write off AE depictions of themselves as cocoa or mahogany-skinned, but I wouldn't rule out a suntan in the case of this Native American guy. What do other people in his nation look like? Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
He's a tarahumara,they're known as being great long distance runners.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: He's a tarahumara,they're known as being great long distance runners.
Looking up photos of them, and some do seem to be quite brown. I suppose that the only way we'll learn how the earliest Native peoples would have looked is analyzing aDNA to see whether they share any of the light-skin alleles found in modern East Asians. If not, it could be that most Native Americans turned lighter through convergent evolution rather than inheriting it all from their Beringian ancestors.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I've never been a big fan of facial reconstructions unless the scientists doing them are double-blinded to exclude bias. Forensic anthropologist and facial reconstruction expert Caroline Wilkinson concisely explains the issue in her 2010 paper here. Basically, she notes the problem of experts taking artistic license more liberally when they are not double-blinded i.e. not knowing about the ethnic background of the subject they are working with.
Definition of double-blind
: of, relating to, or being an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know which subjects are in the test and control groups during the actual course of the experiments
excerpts:
(note "double blind" is not mentioned only "blind" in the article)
Facial reconstruction – anatomical art or artistic anatomy? Caroline Wilkinson
Issues of artistic licence and scientific rigour, in relation to soft tissue reconstruction, anatomical variation and skeletal assessment, are discussed. The need for artistic interpretation is greatest where only skeletal material is available, particularly for the morphology of the ears and mouth, and with the skin for an ageing adult. The greatest accuracy is possible when information is available from preserved soft tissue, from a portrait, or from a pathological condition or healed injury.
Typically, practitioners will show an image of the reconstruction next to an ante-mortem photograph of the identified individual to illustrate the accuracy of the technique (Suzuki, 1975; Haglund & Raey, 1991; Phillips et al. 1996). As only the successful cases are shown in this way, this is not an impartial assessment, and blind studies must be utilized to rigorously analyze the reliability of the techniques. However, the inherent flaw in the majority of blind studies is that it is practically and ethically difficult to represent a forensic scenario based on familiar face recognition (as access to skulls of known identity along with access to relatives of the deceased is almost impossible to achieve), so these blind studies often rely on unfamiliar face recognition and evaluation. The problems associated with the recognition of unfamiliar faces were highlighted by Kemp et al. (1997) who recorded extremely high error rates in the verification of identity from photo-ID cards. This was further demonstrated by Bruce et al. (1999), who investigated matching of unfamiliar target faces from high quality video stills against photographic arrays. The recognition rate was only 70% (where the rate by chance was 10%), despite the fact that the target still was taken on the same day as the array photograph. The recognition rates decreased further when unmatched views or expressions were employed. This research suggests that we are not as accomplished at unfamiliar face recognition as familiar face recognition, where the recognition rates are closer to 90% (Burton et al. 1999), and that different neural mechanisms may be utilized (Bruce & Young, 1986).
The use of portraits for surface detail
Occasionally portraits may be available for use as reference material for the addition of surface detail, such as fatness, age-related changes, skin colour, eye colour, hairstyle and colour and facial hair. In these circumstances the resulting facial reconstructions can be considered more reliable in terms of resemblance. Usually the facial reconstruction process from skull to face is carried out blind to the portrait and then the surface detail is added to depict the face from the past more reliably.
____________________________________
^ the mention of blind analysis is oriented toward criminal investigations involving face matching
When Seeing should not be Believing: Photographs, Credit Cards and Fraud Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1997
This paper describes a field study designed to examine the utility of photo‐credit cards by assessing the accuracy with which supermarket cashiers could identify whether the photographs on credit cards depicted the person tendering them. The results demonstrate that the task of matching the photograph to the shopper is much more difficult than might be expected, and that even under optimized conditions, performance is poor. It is concluded that the introduction of photographs on credit cards would have little effect on the detection of fraud at the point of sale. _____________________________________
This Wilkinson article is not talking about a need for blind reconstruction so that the forensic artist is unbiased. It suggests the opposite that while blind studies are useful in testing methodology it is statistically more accurate to include background information when trying to identify a specimen. That is apparently what happened when she re-did the Luzia image.
The need for artistic interpretation is greatest where only skeletal material is available, particularly for the morphology of the ears and mouth, and with the skin for an ageing adult....
Traditionally the nose has been considered a feature with poor levels of reconstruction accuracy and there have been many studies assessing the relationship between the configuration of the nasal tissue with the bones surrounding the nasal aperture
So she was looking only at a skull. No skin tone, and the fleshy parts variable and the nose variable in shape (but less variable in width"
so 19 years after Richard Neves made the first 1999 reconstruction of Luzia dated 11.5kya they did a DNA analysis of other remains nearby that were dated 10.4 kya and the DNA was of the Americas.
It seems that data may have influenced the artistic interpretation used by the forensic artist in creating the reconstruction or "retrodeformation" .
But that is not to be likened to something like a Fayum mummy painting informing an analysis of a skull.
So both the blind reconstruction is lacking and the non-blind reconstruction could be more accurate -or less accurate due to the interpretation of the external information. (and possibly politics)
I don't take much stock in these reconstructions. The often seem to me to be made for the public and museum displays.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Native Americans share Agouti signaling protien gene variation as well as Melanocortin 1 with mutated Eurasians and Africans and other minor coding pigment related genes (Tyrosinase and OCA2).... They are fixed for derived Agouti which explains their Vedic tone despite heavy pigmentation... (You know the look of a very tanned non black African/PNG person.)
I don't think there is much evidence of convergent evolution per say but there is always a chance that light Amerindians before transatlantic movements had unique depigmentation variants. however I heavily doubt they were wide spread on a "sweeping selection" level.... They were called redskins or copper skinned for a reason.
See norton 2007 for more information.
Also I doubt the possibility that they had shared the variants (rs1800414, rs74653330) responsible for the "Extreme fairness" among modern east asians. They dispersed to recently.... especially the latter (rs74653330) which is twice as effective in depigmentation, and isn't even found that frequently in preneolithic ancient Asians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Richard Neave 1999
Caroline Wilkinson 2018
Skin tone is not at issue in this thread. It's skull shape and facial structure
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
Why would the head shape be a issue? We all can see that but the facial features is where the controversy is coming from.
Again the issues isn't head shape.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
head shape and facial features are both factors in attempts to identify the ancestry of the skull
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda:
I was following up the story about Luzia and learned that late 2018 some researchers announced that DNA studies indicated that the skull model was wrong and that Luiza was not related to Africans or Australians.
quote:In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian physical appearance of Luzia. Using DNA sequencing, the results showed that Luzia had Mongoloid features.[24] The bust of Luzia displaying African features was done in the 1990's. "However, skull shape isn't a reliable marker of ancestrality or geographic origin. Genetics is the best basis for this type of inference," Strauss explained. "The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia's people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today's Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia's people were entirely Amerindian."[25]
I am not an expert in this area, but if the skeleton (ie the skull) does not match what the DNA predicts then their models for predicting skeletal form from DNA must be wrong or inadequate.
above reference [24]
Estudo contradiz teoria de povoamento da América e sugere que rosto de Luzia era diferente do que se pensava novembro 8, 2018 admin
excerpt translated from Portuguese
Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought November 8, 2018
quote: Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought November 8, 2018 admin
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years. Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America. Researchers at the University of Sao Paulo and Harvard released on Thursday (8) a discovery that contradicts the main theory of settlement of America. With the help of DNA extraction from buried fossils for over ten thousand years, they were able to evaluate the genetic code of the fossils to find out who our ancestors are. “Until very recently it was virtually technically impossible to extract DNA from very old bones. Because in the tropical environment that we live there is the degradation of organic matter in general and this also applies to DNA. It is very intense, ”said André Strauss, Professor at the USP Museum of Archeology and Ethnology. The work was done jointly by USP, Harvard University and the Max Planck Institute of Germany. The scientists studied nine human bones in the Lagoa Santa region of Minas Gerais. From the same archaeological sites of Luzia, the bones of a woman who would have lived more than 11,000 years ago and is considered the first Brazilian. 'New' features of the people of Luzia Simulation shows new features of Luzia TV globe The Luzia fossil - the oldest human in South America - was found in the rubble of the National Museum in Rio and had disappeared in the fire that destroyed the museum in early September. There are two theories for the arrival of humans to the American continents. The first says that we are descended from East Asian populations that crossed the Bering Strait - at the time, it still connected to North America - and descended to South America. But in the 1990s, a new theory was created. That the American territories were also populated by even older humans, the first who had already left Africa, crossed Asia, and would have come straight to the Americas, until they reached Brazil. The idea came about because the researchers studied the measurements of Luzia's skull and found it to be wider than those of the Indians and more similar to those of Africans. But the result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different. With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense. “Genetic data point to the existence of a major migratory wave with possible secondary events involved. But roughly speaking, the scenario we have today is that 98% of Amerindian ancestry can be traced to a single reaches in America. In other words, the people of Luzia have come to America along with all the other populations that came from the Asian continent, ”said Strauss. Reconstruction of Luzia's face TV globe
^^ as we can see they don't use the term mongoloid nor in the Portuguese version
following is the primary research article the above is based on. Luzia is not mentioned. The research is about other remains nearby and then in later science magazine articles it was related to Luzia. "Mongolid" is not mentioned, nor is "skull" This is DNA analysis
(excerpts but there is a lot more at link)
Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America Cosimo Posth 45 Nathan Nakatsuka 45 Iosif Lazaridis Lars Fehren-Schmitz 46 Johannes Krause 46 David Reich
Highlights
• Genome-wide analysis of 49 Central and South Americans up to ∼11,000 years old • Two previously unknown genetic exchanges between North and South America • Distinct link between a Clovis culture-associated genome and the oldest South Americans • Continent-wide replacement of Clovis-associated ancestry beginning at least 9,000 years ago
Summary We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 49 individuals forming four parallel time transects in Belize, Brazil, the Central Andes, and the Southern Cone, each dating to at least ∼9,000 years ago. The common ancestral population radiated rapidly from just one of the two early branches that contributed to Native Americans today. We document two previously unappreciated streams of gene flow between North and South America. One affected the Central Andes by ∼4,200 years ago, while the other explains an affinity between the oldest North American genome associated with the Clovis culture and the oldest Central and South Americans from Chile, Brazil, and Belize. However, this was not the primary source for later South Americans, as the other ancient individuals derive from lineages without specific affinity to the Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a population replacement that began at least 9,000 years ago and was followed by substantial population continuity in multiple regions.
The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people. For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (from the site of Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Cone individuals.
Previous studies have suggested that present-day groups like Surui from Amazonia harbor ancestry from a source termed “Population Y” (Raghavan et al., 2015 , Skoglund et al., 2015 ), which shared alleles at an elevated rate with Australasian groups (Onge, Papuan, and Australians) as well as the ∼40,000 BP Tianyuan individual from China (Yang et al., 2017 ).
Recent analyses have also shown that some groups in Brazil share more alleles with Australasians (indigenous New Guineans, Australians, and Andaman Islanders) (Raghavan et al., 2015 , Skoglund et al., 2015 ) and an ∼40,000 BP individual from northern China (Yang et al., 2017 ) than do other Central and South Americans. Such patterns suggest that these groups do not entirely descend from a single homogeneous population and instead derive from a mixture of populations, one of which, Population Y, bore a distinctive affinity to Australasians. Notably, our study includes data from individuals such as those from the Lapa do Santo site who have a cranial morphology known as “Paleoamerican,” argued to indicate two distinct New-World-founding populations (von Cramon-Taubadel et al., 2017 ). Here, we test directly the hypothesis that a Paleoamerican cranial morphology was associated with a lineage distinct from the one that contributed to other Native Americans (whether the proposed Population Y or another)
Most important, our discovery that the Clovis-associated Anzick-1(Montana) genome at ∼12,800 BP shares distinctive ancestry with the oldest Chilean, Brazilian, and Belizean individuals supports the hypothesis that an expansion of people who spread the Clovis culture in North America also affected Central and South America, as expected if the spread of the Fishtail Complex in Central and South America and the Clovis Complex in North America were part of the same phenomenon (direct confirmation would require ancient DNA from a Fishtail-context) (Pearson, 2017 ). However, the fact that the great majority of ancestry of later South Americans lacks specific affinity to Anzick-1 rules out the hypothesis of a homogeneous founding population. Thus, if Clovis-related expansions were responsible for the peopling of South America, it must have been a complex scenario involving arrival in the Americas of sub-structured lineages with and without specific Anzick-1 affinity, with the one with Anzick-1 affinity making a minimal long-term contribution. While we cannot at present determine when the non-Anzick-1 associated lineages first arrived in South America, we can place an upper bound on the date of the spread to South America of all the lineages represented in our sampled ancient genomes as all are ANC-A and thus must have diversified after the ANC-A/ANC-B split estimated to have occurred ∼17,500–14,600 BP
This tree recapitulates the star-like phylogeny of the founding Southern Native American mtDNA haplogroups A2, B2, C1b, C1c, C1d, D1 and D4h3a reported previously (Tamm et al., 2007 ). We report five new Central and South American individuals belonging to the rare haplogroup D4h3a (3 Brazil, 1 Chile, 1 Belize), which among ancient individuals has been identified so far only in two individuals from the North American Northwest Coast (Lindo et al., 2017 ) and in the Anzick-1 individual (Rasmussen et al., 2014 ) but not in Southern Ontario, ancient Californians (Scheib et al., 2018 ), or Western South America (Llamas et al., 2016 ) where it has the highest frequency today (Perego et al., 2009 ). Previously this haplogroup was hypothesized to be a possible marker of human dispersal along the Pacific coast, but its presence in early individuals from Belize and Brazil (as well as in the inland Anzick-1 genome from Montana in the U.S.A.) suggests an ancient spread toward the Atlantic coast as well with its lower frequency there today being due to population replacement or to genetic drift.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^^ the primary research article from Max Planck and including David Reich did not mention mongoloids or Asian morphology. They discovered haplogroups regarded as Native American
quote:mtDNA haplogroups A2, B2, C1b, C1c, C1d, D1 and D4h3a reported previously (Tamm et al., 2007 ). We report five new Central and South American individuals belonging to the rare haplogroup D4h3a (3 Brazil, 1 Chile, 1 Belize), which among ancient individuals has been identified so far only in two individuals from the North American Northwest Coast (Lindo et al., 2017 ) and in the Anzick-1 individual (Rasmussen et al., 2014
They related these ancient Brazilian, Chilean and Belize as bearing similarity to Anzick-1 is the name given to the remains of Paleo-Indian male infant found in south central Montana, U.S. in 1968 that date to 12,707–12,556 years BP.
This article was published in the journal Cell a group of 72 researchers from eight countries, affiliated with the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil, Harvard University in the United States, and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, among others. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: [QB] It must be clear that ancient Brazilians want no part of the EU
I was following up the story about Luzia and learned that late 2018 some researchers announced that DNA studies indicated that the skull model was wrong and that Luiza was not related to Africans or Australians.
quote:In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian physical appearance of Luzia. Using DNA sequencing, the results showed that Luzia had Mongoloid features.[24]
^^ this item where it said the results showed that "Luzia had Mongoloid features."
is not what the two articles released on the same day said. They were DNA research and did not discuss physical morphology or the word "mongoloid"
1)
Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America University of São Paulo and Harvard University, etc
Early human dispersals within the Americas Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
..
.
I have just discovered that this digital image made by British anthropologist and forensic artist Caroline Wilkinson and shown in many articles with captions saying it is Luzia IS NOT LUZIA !! It is a young man dated 9K (Luzia, a female, is dated 11.5K), 2,500 year difference
Comparison between Richard Neave's 1999 facial reconstruction of Luzia and another skull from Lagoa Santa, now done by Caroline Wilkinson, based on new genetic evidence of the ancestry of the people of Lagoa Santa. 3D modeling by André Strauss / MAE-USP
Genetic data extracted from the DNA of skeletons buried in a cave in Minas Gerais are giving a new face to Brazilian prehistory and, in a way, helping to rewrite 20,000 years of settlement history in the Americas.
The most striking result concerns the so-called Luzia People, who inhabited the Lagoa Santa region near Belo Horizonte between 12,000 and 9,000 years ago, and whose group's name refers to their most illustrious character, Luzia, a A woman in her early twenties whose skull was found by archaeologists in the 1970s - and nearly destroyed in the fire of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro two months ago.
Contrary to something that had been proposed for more than two decades, based mainly on morphological analyzes of Luzia's skull, the new genetic evidence suggests "categorically", According to the researchers, there is no kinship relationship between the Luzia People and ancient populations of Africa or Australia.
"Therefore, the hypothesis that the Luzia people would represent an earlier migratory wave to the ancestors of the current indigenous people is not confirmed," state the Brazilian authors of the study, published today in the journal Cell . “On the contrary, DNA shows that the people of Luzia have totally Amerindian genetics”
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
Facial reconstruction of the People of Luzia by Caroline Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University in England, based on a retroformed digital skull model of the Lapa do Santo archaeological site. The skull used as a reference is from a young man, cataloged as Burial 26.
Doubt about the origin of the Luzia people arose in the 1990s, when anthropologist Walter Neves of the University of São Paulo described the Luzia skull (hitherto forgotten in the archives of the National Museum) as having a predominantly black and white morphology. 11,500 years old - older than any found in the Americas to date. To explain this, Neves postulated that Luzia and her people were representatives of a migratory wave prior to the one that gave rise to modern Amerindians. This first migration, he said, would have come from the same route as the Bering Strait - that is, also from Asia - but would be made up of individuals who still preserved a Negroid morphology rather than the Mongoloid features that predominate in today's indigenous peoples. It was this hypothesis that guided the facial reconstruction of Luzia by the British Richard Neave in 1999, giving it a more African than Asian appearance. At that time, it was not yet possible to analyze the DNA of human fossils, as is now done with the so-called "archeogenetics". The analyzes, therefore, were based solely on the morphology of the bones and the archaeological information associated with them. Neves was wanted by the report but declined to comment.
According to Strauss, Neves (who was his master's advisor at the USP Bioscience Institute) was right in proposing that the Luzia people represented a differentiated and eventually vanished population, replaced by the ancestors of modern Amerindians. The genetics associated with the Luzia people, in fact, disappear from the continent 9,000 years ago. The difference, according to Strauss, is that its origin was not in Africa, but in North America.
Another surprising discovery of the work concerns the Clovis people, who flourished in the United States about 13,000 years ago and became famous for making chipped stone spearheads. This population was believed to be restricted to North America, but genetic data from Lagoa Santa and two other archaeological sites (Los Rieles in Chile; and Mayahak Cab Pek in Belize) reveal that the people of Clovis also migrated to Central and South America from 12,000 years ago, giving rise to new populations - among them, the Luzia People.
The chipped stone tips apparently lagged behind, as none to date have been found further south than Mexico, but Clovis genetics moved on. This is the great advantage of archeogenetics, according to Strauss: "It allows us to see things that are not invisible to classical archeology," says the researcher. "Evidence that is only visible in genes." Lapa do Santo, archaeological site where were found the skeletons used in the research, in the region of Lagoa Santa (MG). Photo: Mauricio de Paiva
Cell's work has more than 70 authors from various countries, of which 17 are Brazilian. Another paper published today in the journal Science , also by Brazilian authors, also analyzed the DNA of Lagoa Santa skeletons and other archaeological sites in the Americas. The results, for the most part, agree with the results presented at Cell, showing that the continent was populated by a single migratory wave, and that the dispersal and diversification of this population across the continent occurred quite rapidly. In less than 2,000 years, there were people living from northern Canada to southern Chile.
One difference is that, in this case, the researchers found an “genetic sign” of Australian origin (Negroid) in the population of Lagoa Santa, but extremely subtle and in only one of the five skeletons analyzed. Something that, according to them, has nothing to do with the morphology of the Luzia people.
_________________________________________
I had actually showed this skull earlier but didn't realize it
9,000-year-old decapitated skull was unearthed, with a pair of amputated hands
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Another nonsequitor response.
U keep talkin color & while doing it ignore color mutation is one way from dark to light. That's as far you'll try to drag me into your all light Beringian hypothesis. That very dark skinned Indians, like the California ones, derive from lightskin Asians contrary to known human pigment science. Else please inform, any precision welcome.
I'm talking facial features from two skinless skulls. I'm talking associated DNA so-called Paleo vs contemporary.
PaleoIndian AmerIndian genetic dichotomy is false. Both share genomes similar enough to be common.
We're left with geographic populations. We see Ainu/caucasoid looking Ancient One as one type of early North American Indian. Then there's Melanesian/australoid featured Luzia as one of South America's early type of Indians.
Both are from the same breeding population that entered America from Beringia, distinct from CircumPolar peoples who came to the land.
That's what should draw comments. It's red herring to attach color argumentation, singularly, after quoting me. Just shy of strawman illogic.
Without Hapsberg's thread I never woulda pulled the pieces together. Still, something's up with Ainu looks north and Oceanic ones south. Mimics the case of Asia. Why?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The Ancient One: genetically ancestral to North American Indians, racial biased phenotype bigots be damned.
Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
My assumption has been that at least part of the lighter skin found in most Native Americans today was inherited from their common ancestors with Northeast Asians. That's why I haven't been so crazy for the claim that they were still "black" upon moving into the Americas from Beringia. I would be more open to that argument if one could show that the relatively light skin in Natives today evolved separately from what you see in their East Asian relatives.
That said, I wonder what ethnic group this individual (whose photo Baalberith posted) comes from? I know Euronuts like to use suntanning to write off AE depictions of themselves as cocoa or mahogany-skinned, but I wouldn't rule out a suntan in the case of this Native American guy. What do other people in his nation look like?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
If you read back my previous two posts, it's mainly what is need to know on this topic.
The Max Plank article did not discuss physical appearance, it was about the DNA being Native America and nor Australasian or African
Caroline Wilkinson made the 2018 digital image based on a man's skull from a nearby different site and 2,500 years younger.
Other articles followed - not journal articles, and from what I see, supposition that the Luzia reconstruction was therefore incorrect and some of them also caption the man from the other site as Luzia. It seems like information being passed and embellished
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ..
.
I have just discovered that this digital image made by British anthropologist and forensic artist Caroline Wilkinson and shown in many articles with captions saying it is Luzia IS NOT LUZIA !! It is a young man dated 9K (Luzia, a female, is dated 11.5K), 2,500 year difference
Comparison between Richard Neave's 1999 facial reconstruction of Luzia and another skull from Lagoa Santa, now done by Caroline Wilkinson, based on new genetic evidence of the ancestry of the people of Lagoa Santa. 3D modeling by André Strauss / MAE-USP
Genetic data extracted from the DNA of skeletons buried in a cave in Minas Gerais are giving a new face to Brazilian prehistory and, in a way, helping to rewrite 20,000 years of settlement history in the Americas.
The most striking result concerns the so-called Luzia People, who inhabited the Lagoa Santa region near Belo Horizonte between 12,000 and 9,000 years ago, and whose group's name refers to their most illustrious character, Luzia, a A woman in her early twenties whose skull was found by archaeologists in the 1970s - and nearly destroyed in the fire of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro two months ago.
Contrary to something that had been proposed for more than two decades, based mainly on morphological analyzes of Luzia's skull, the new genetic evidence suggests "categorically", According to the researchers, there is no kinship relationship between the Luzia People and ancient populations of Africa or Australia.
"Therefore, the hypothesis that the Luzia people would represent an earlier migratory wave to the ancestors of the current indigenous people is not confirmed," state the Brazilian authors of the study, published today in the journal Cell . “On the contrary, DNA shows that the people of Luzia have totally Amerindian genetics”
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
Facial reconstruction of the People of Luzia by Caroline Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University in England, based on a retroformed digital skull model of the Lapa do Santo archaeological site. The skull used as a reference is from a young man, cataloged as Burial 26.
Doubt about the origin of the Luzia people arose in the 1990s, when anthropologist Walter Neves of the University of São Paulo described the Luzia skull (hitherto forgotten in the archives of the National Museum) as having a predominantly black and white morphology. 11,500 years old - older than any found in the Americas to date. To explain this, Neves postulated that Luzia and her people were representatives of a migratory wave prior to the one that gave rise to modern Amerindians. This first migration, he said, would have come from the same route as the Bering Strait - that is, also from Asia - but would be made up of individuals who still preserved a Negroid morphology rather than the Mongoloid features that predominate in today's indigenous peoples. It was this hypothesis that guided the facial reconstruction of Luzia by the British Richard Neave in 1999, giving it a more African than Asian appearance. At that time, it was not yet possible to analyze the DNA of human fossils, as is now done with the so-called "archeogenetics". The analyzes, therefore, were based solely on the morphology of the bones and the archaeological information associated with them. Neves was wanted by the report but declined to comment.
According to Strauss, Neves (who was his master's advisor at the USP Bioscience Institute) was right in proposing that the Luzia people represented a differentiated and eventually vanished population, replaced by the ancestors of modern Amerindians. The genetics associated with the Luzia people, in fact, disappear from the continent 9,000 years ago. The difference, according to Strauss, is that its origin was not in Africa, but in North America.
Another surprising discovery of the work concerns the Clovis people, who flourished in the United States about 13,000 years ago and became famous for making chipped stone spearheads. This population was believed to be restricted to North America, but genetic data from Lagoa Santa and two other archaeological sites (Los Rieles in Chile; and Mayahak Cab Pek in Belize) reveal that the people of Clovis also migrated to Central and South America from 12,000 years ago, giving rise to new populations - among them, the Luzia People.
The chipped stone tips apparently lagged behind, as none to date have been found further south than Mexico, but Clovis genetics moved on. This is the great advantage of archeogenetics, according to Strauss: "It allows us to see things that are not invisible to classical archeology," says the researcher. "Evidence that is only visible in genes." Lapa do Santo, archaeological site where were found the skeletons used in the research, in the region of Lagoa Santa (MG). Photo: Mauricio de Paiva
Cell's work has more than 70 authors from various countries, of which 17 are Brazilian. Another paper published today in the journal Science , also by Brazilian authors, also analyzed the DNA of Lagoa Santa skeletons and other archaeological sites in the Americas. The results, for the most part, agree with the results presented at Cell, showing that the continent was populated by a single migratory wave, and that the dispersal and diversification of this population across the continent occurred quite rapidly. In less than 2,000 years, there were people living from northern Canada to southern Chile.
One difference is that, in this case, the researchers found an “genetic sign” of Australian origin (Negroid) in the population of Lagoa Santa, but extremely subtle and in only one of the five skeletons analyzed. Something that, according to them, has nothing to do with the morphology of the Luzia people.
_________________________________________
I had actually showed this skull earlier but didn't realize it
9,000-year-old decapitated skull was unearthed, with a pair of amputated hands
LOL Well this makes perfect sense as the newer reconstruction looks too different as to not be the same person. Even the neurocranial shape which is the most consistent part of the skull looked different.
So this new reconstruction is a man contemporary to Luzia. Got it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Well this makes perfect sense as the newer reconstruction looks too different as to not be the same person. Even the neurocranial shape which is the most consistent part of the skull looked different.
So this new reconstruction is a man contemporary to Luzia. Got it. [/QB]
if you want to call a 2.5k difference contemporary, yes
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Lies and damned lies
Yte bias against negroid features is the root of introducing an imaginary so-called "Luzia people" to replace the actual real Luzia.
It's acceptable because Eurocentrics are yte people and therefore not bad like blk Afreccentrics. So expect no stink as it soothes yte consciousness to have nothing remotely African, like Oceanic features, in early America.
OP referenced article from TV Globo
quote: Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years.
Por César Menezes, TV Globo 08/11/2018 17h50 Atualizado há 8 meses
Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
OP referenced article from TV Globo (Google xlation)
quote: Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years.
Por César Menezes, TV Globo 08/11/2018 17h50 Atualizado há 8 meses
[caption to video too wide to repost Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America. ]
Researchers at the University of Sao Paulo and Harvard released on Thursday (8) a discovery that contradicts the main theory of settlement of America. With the help of DNA extraction from buried fossils for over ten thousand years, they were able to evaluate the genetic code of the fossils to find out who our ancestors are.
"Until very recently it was practically impossible from a technical point of view to extract DNA from very old bones. Because in the tropical environment we live in there is the degradation of organic matter in general and this also applies to DNA. It is very intense," said André Strauss, Professor at the USP Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
'New' features of the people of Luzia [caption Simulation shows new features of Luzia - Photo: TV Globo]
The Luzia fossil - the oldest human in South America - was found in the rubble of the National Museum in Rio and had disappeared in the fire that destroyed the museum in early September.
There are two theories for the arrival of humans to the American continents.
The first says that we are descended from East Asian populations that crossed the Bering Strait - at the time, it still connected to North America - and descended to South America.
But in the 1990s, a new theory was created. That the American territories were also populated by even older humans, the first who had already left Africa, crossed Asia, and would have come straight to the Americas, until they reached Brazil.
The idea came about because the researchers studied the measurements of Luzia's skull and found it to be wider than those of the Indians and more similar to those of Africans.
But the result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different.
With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense.
"Genetic data point to the existence of a major migratory wave with possible secondary events involved. But, roughly speaking, the scenario we have today is that 98% of Amerindian ancestry can be traced to a single reaches in America. in other words, the people of Luzia came to America along with all the other populations that came from the Asian continent," said Strauss.
[caption to image Reconstruction of Luzia's face - Photo: TV Globo]
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
The irony is that their entire academic discourse has been build around these cranial metrics, when they created their RACE CONCEPT.
In reality they are shooting themselves in the foot.
And now it's time to play chess not checkers.
America being the latest and most accurate description of the new world
Ogilby, John; Montanus, Arnoldus Printed by the author, 1671
Rede Globo (or simply Globo, is a Brazilian free-to-air television network, launched by media proprietor Roberto Marinho on 26 April 1965. It is owned by media conglomerate Grupo Globo, being by far the largest of its holdings. Globo is the largest commercial TV network in Latin America and the second-largest commercial TV network of the world just behind the American ABC Television Network[6] and the largest producer of telenovelas
Estudo contradiz teoria de povoamento da América e sugere que rosto de Luzia era diferente do que se pensava Pesquisadores da USP e de Harvard extraíram DNA de ossos humanos enterrados por mais de dez mil anos.
César Menezes, El Globo
translation:
Study contradicts settlement theory of America and suggests that Luzia's face was different than previously thought USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years.
he result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different. With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense.
_____________________________
remarks of André Strauss professor at the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo and of of Max Planck Institute in Leipzig one of the authors of the affiliated other article released in Nov 2018 Early human dispersals within the Americas
"However, skull shape isn't a reliable marker of ancestrality or geographic origin. Genetics is the best basis for this type of inference," Strauss explained. "The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia's people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today's Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia's people were entirely Amerindian."
at the same time Caroline Wilkinson came out with the digital reconstruction of the young man from a skull found near to The Luiza site.
I'm not sure who the exact origin of the presumptuous idea
"Luzia's face was different than previously thought"
Was it César Menezes, the reporter from Portuguese article El Globo ?
Anyway the story did not seem to have entered much into the English speaking media
The Strauss quotes I have seen seem to reference Lagoa Santa and are not specific to Luzia unless there are more Strauss quotes to that effect
Somewhere along these Brazilian mainstream media outlets may have been thinking " We finally put Luzia to rest, I told you our ancestors weren't negroes" and exaggerated the DNA findings to discredit the '99 reconstruction by Neves
César Menezes, repoter El Globo
what do we know about César Menezes?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Ancient DNA suggests people settled South America in at least 3 waves
New genetic analyses are filling in the picture of who the earliest Americans were By Tina Hesman Saey 9:00am, November 9, 2018
DNA from a 9,000-year-old baby tooth from Alaska, the oldest natural mummy in North America and remains of ancient Brazilians is helping researchers trace the steps of ancient people as they settled the Americas. Two new studies give a more detailed and complicated picture of the peopling of the Americas than ever before presented.
People from North America moved into South America in at least three migration waves, researchers report online November 8 in Cell.
The child’s skeleton was found with artifacts from the Clovis people, who researchers used to think were the first people in the Americas, although that idea has fallen out of favor. Scientists also previously thought these were the only ancient migrants to South America.
But DNA analysis of samples from 49 ancient people suggests a second wave of settlers replaced the Clovis group in South America about 9,000 years ago. And a third group related to ancient people from California’s Channel Islands spread over the Central Andes about 4,200 years ago, geneticist Nathan Nakatsuka of Harvard University and colleagues found.
Early Americans moved into prehistoric South America in at least three migratory waves, a study proposes. Ancestral people who crossed from Siberia into Alaska first gave rise to groups that settled North America (gray arrows). The first wave of North Americans (blue) were related to Clovis people, represented by a 12,600-year-old toddler from Montana called Anzick-1. They moved into South America at least 11,000 years ago, followed by a second wave (green) whose descendants contributed most of the indigenous ancestry among South Americans today. A third migration wave (yellow) from a group that lived near California’s Channel Island moved into the Central Andes about 4,200 years ago. Dotted areas indicate that people there today still have that genetic ancestry.
People who settled the Americas were also much more genetically diverse than previously thought.
Genetically related, but distinct groups of people came into the Americas and spread quickly and unevenly across the continents, says Eske Willerslev, a geneticist at the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen and a coauthor of the Science study. “People were spreading like a fire across the landscape and very quickly adapted to the different environments they were encountering.”
Both studies offer details that help fill out an oversimplified narrative of the prehistoric Americas, says Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence who was not involved in the work. “We’re learning some interesting, surprising things,” she says.
For instance, Willerslev’s group did detailed DNA analysis of 15 ancient Americans different from those analyzed by Nakatsuka and colleagues. A tooth from Trail Creek in Alaska was from a baby related to a group called the ancient Beringians, who occupied the temporary land mass between Alaska and Siberia called Beringia. Sometimes called the Bering land bridge, the land mass was above water before the glaciers receded at the end of the last ice age.
The link between Australia and ancient Amazonians also hints that several genetically distinct groups may have come across Beringia into the Americas.
The Australian signature was first found in modern-day indigenous South Americans by Pontus Skoglund and colleagues (SN: 8/22/15, p. 6). No one was sure why indigenous Australians and South Americans shared DNA since the groups didn’t have any recent contact. One possibility, says Skoglund, a geneticist at the Francis Crick Institute in London and a coauthor of the Cell paper, was that the signature was very old and inherited from long-lost ancestors of both groups.
So Skoglund, Nakatsuka and colleagues tested DNA from a group of ancient Brazilians, but didn’t find the signature.
supporting the idea that modern people could have inherited it from much older groups. And Skoglund is thrilled. “It’s amazing to see it confirmed,” he says.
How that genetic signature got to Brazil in the first place is still a mystery, though. Researchers don’t think early Australians paddled across the Pacific Ocean to South America. “None of us really think there was some sort of Pacific migration going on here,” Skoglund says.
That leaves an overland route through Beringia. There’s only one problem:
Still, Raff thinks it likely that an ancestral group of people from Asia split off into two groups, with one heading to Australia and the other crossing the land bridge into the Americas. The group that entered the Americas didn’t leave living descendants in the north. Or, because not many ancient remains have been studied, it’s possible that scientists have just missed finding evidence of this particular migration.
If Raff is right, that could mean that multiple groups of genetically distinct people made the Berigian crossing, or that one group crossed but was far more genetically diverse than researchers have realized.
The studies may also finally help lay to rest a persistent idea that some ancient remains in the Americas are not related to Native Americans today.
The Lagoa Santans from Brazil and a 10,700-year-old mummy from a place called Spirit Cave in Nevada had been grouped as “Paleoamericans” because they both had narrow skulls with low faces and protruding jaw lines, different from other Native American skull shapes. Some researchers have suggested that Paleoamericans — including the so-called Kennewick Man, whose 8,500-year-old remains were found in the state of Washington (SN: 12/26/15, p. 30) — weren’t Native Americans, but a separate group that didn’t have modern descendants.
Willerslev presented the results about the Spirit Cave mummy to the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone tribe when the data became available. Based on the genetic results, the tribe was able to claim the mummy as an ancestor and rebury the remains.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
So do they do or do they don't have Oceanic DNA?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
[caption The Suruí from the Brazilian Amazon carry traces of Australasian ancestry, now confirmed to have arrived in South America more than 10,400 years ago. Craig Stennett/Alamy Stock Photo ]
. . . . the data decisively dispel suggestions, based on the distinctive skull shape of a few ancient remains, that early populations had a different ancestry from today's Native Americans. "Native Americans truly did originate in the Americas, as a genetically and culturally distinctive group. They are absolutely indigenous to this continent," Raff says.
(MAP) C. POSTH ET AL., CELL, 175 (2018) ADAPTED BY J. YOU/SCIENCE; (DATA) J. MORENO-MAYAR ET AL., SCIENCE 10.1126/SCIENCE.AAV2621
. . . . Just as mysterious is the trace of Australasian ancestry in some ancient South Americans. Reich and others had previously seen hints of it in living people in the Brazilian Amazon. Now, Willerslev has provided more evidence: telltale DNA in one person from Lagoa Santa in Brazil, who lived 10,400 years ago. "How did it get there? We have no idea," says geneticist José Víctor Moreno-Mayar of the University of Copenhagen, first author of the Willerslev paper.
The signal doesn't appear in any other of the team's samples, "somehow leaping over all of North America in a single bound," says co-author and archaeologist David Meltzer of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He wonders whether that Australasian ancestry was confined to a small population of Siberian migrants who remained isolated from other Native American ancestors throughout the journey through Beringia and the Americas. That suggests individual groups may have moved into the continents without mixing.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
^ the above article again is referring to the journal Science article one of the two articles in published in late 2018 Willerslev is one of the authors as well as André Strauss who has been quoted in related non-journal articles as well
Research Article Early human dispersals within the Americas 2018
Research Article Early human dispersals within the Americas
J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar1,*, Lasse Vinner1,*, Peter de Barros Damgaard1,*, Constanza de la Fuente1,*, Jeffrey Chan2,*, Jeffrey P. Spence3,*, Morten E. Allentoft1, Tharsika Vimala1, Fernando Racimo1, Thomaz Pinotti4, Simon Rasmussen5, Ashot Margaryan1,6, Miren Iraeta Orbegozo1, Dorothea Mylopotamitaki1, Matthew Wooller7, Clement Bataille8, Lorena Becerra-Valdivia9, David Chivall9, Daniel Comeskey9, Thibaut Devièse9, Donald K. Grayson10, Len George11, Harold Harry12, Verner Alexandersen13, Charlotte Primeau13, Jon Erlandson14, Claudia Rodrigues-Carvalho15, Silvia Reis15, Murilo Q. R. Bastos15, Jerome Cybulski16,17,18, Carlos Vullo19, Flavia Morello20, Miguel Vilar21, Spencer Wells22, Kristian Gregersen1, Kasper Lykke Hansen1, Niels Lynnerup13, Marta Mirazón Lahr23, Kurt Kjær1, André Strauss24,25, Marta Alfonso-Durruty26, Antonio Salas27,28, Hannes Schroeder1, Thomas Higham9, Ripan S. Malhi29, Jeffrey T. Rasic30, Luiz Souza31, Fabricio R. Santos4, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas32, Martin Sikora1, Rasmus Nielsen1,33,34, Yun S. Song2,33,35,†, David J. Meltzer1,36,†, Eske Willerslev1,37
RATIONALE
Claims of migrations into the Americas by people related to Australasians or by bearers of a distinctive cranial morphology (“Paleoamericans”) before the divergence of NAs from Siberians and East Asians have created controversy. Likewise, the speed by which the Americas were populated; the number of basal divergences; and the degrees of isolation, admixture, and continuity in different regions are poorly understood. To address these matters, we sequenced 15 ancient human genomes recovered from sites spanning from Alaska to Patagonia; six are ≥10 ka old (up to ~18× coverage).
Soon after arrival in South America, groups diverged along multiple geographic paths, and before 10.4 ka ago, these groups admixed with a population that harbored Australasian ancestry, which may have been widespread among early South Americans. Later, Mesoamerican-related population(s) expanded north and south, possibly marking the movement of relatively small groups that did not necessarily swamp local populations genetically or culturally.
Rapid expansion, compounded by the attenuating effect of distance and, in places, by geographic and social barriers, gave rise to complex population histories. These include strong population structure in the Pacific Northwest; isolation in the North American Great Basin, followed by long-term genetic continuity and ultimately an episode of admixture predating ~0.7 ka ago; and multiple independent, geographically uneven migrations into South America. One such migration provides clues of Late Pleistocene Australasian ancestry in South America, whereas another represents a Mesoamerican-related expansion; both contributed to present-day South American ancestry.
We further explored the fit of the model [Fig.3A] for each South American group by fixing the Australasian contribution into Lagoa Santa and the Mesoamerican contribution [Fig. 3, D and E]into the test SNA population across a range of values .Whereas an Australasian contribution of less than 1% and greater than ~6%
The Australasian contribution into Lagoa Santa was consistently nonzero when we modeled South Americans, although we did not observe in every case a significant improvement when modeling Australasian admixture into SNA groups through Lagoa Santa (13). This result suggests that this ancestry was widespread among early South Americans. Although we are unable to estimate the Lagoa Santa–related admixture proportion for these groups with confidence, we observea general trend for populations east of the Andes(e.g.,the Suruí)to bear more of this ancestry than Andean groups (e.g., the Aymara) (Fig. 3F) (13)
Although we detected the Australasian signalin one of the Lagoa Santa individuals identified as a Paleoamerican, it is absent in other Paleoamericans (2,10), including the Spirit Cave genome with its strong genetic affinities to Lagoa Santa. This indicates that the Paleoamerican cranial form is not associated with the Australasian genetic signal, as previously suggested (6), or anyother specific NA clade (2). The Paleoamerican cranial form, if it is representative of broader population patterns, evidently did not result from separate ancestry but likely from multiple factors,including isolation, drift, and nonstochastic mechanisms Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Lies and damned lies
Yte bias against negroid features is the root of introducing an imaginary so-called "Luzia people" to replace the actual real Luzia.
It's acceptable because Eurocentrics are yte people and therefore not bad like blk Afreccentrics. So expect no stink as it soothes yte consciousness to have nothing remotely African like Oceanic features in early America.
Not that I don't doubt the agenda you speak of, but I find it odd that they have a problem with the features now, and why the early Lagoa Santa people??
For example, "negroid" features are found among paleolithic individuals in Sungir, Russia and Grimaldi, Italy--both in Europe and allegedly ancestral to Europeans. Yet they never had any issues with them or rather just explained away their features as "generalized modern" or something. Why then would they be so concerned with what features ancestral Native Americans had?
And again why now? Ever since the discovery of not only Luzia but her folk in Lagoa Santa it has been pretty much been taken for granted they have "negroid/Australoid" type features and there seemed to have been no complaints.
And what about the older Naia girl of Mexico who also had the same type of features??
quote:OP referenced article from TV Globo
quote: Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years.
Por César Menezes, TV Globo 08/11/2018 17h50 Atualizado há 8 meses
Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America.
I have not yet read the paper though I am curious as to their reasons for contradicting the 2005 Neves & Hubbe study with its findings below: Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Tukuler, I suggest you read my post here in regards to aDNA of the Jomon and the ancestral populations of the Americas.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Ytes negated Grimaldi negroid features over 50 yrs ago saying such facial features were the result of accidental pressure, faulty reconstrucion, etc. That's part of what I was talking about when mentioning Grimaldi, Iwo Eleru, and no full negro features before 6000 BCE in my 1st post.
The site name 'Grimaldi' is practically verboten. To abolish the memory, Gravettian now names the Grimaldi related industry and same type osteo remains clear across Europe and Russia.
MDW Jeffries (1951) The Negro Enigma West African Review for the infamous "us, not negro" tirade
Pierre Legoux (Ocy. 1962] Proceedings of the French Academy of Sciemces pp 2276-7 explains away prognathism and limb proportion
If it's one thing ytes will not abide it's the presence of the blk with anything approaching the set of extreme facial features they have labeled negro, rarely if at all seen in the media or the professional work force where people greet potential clients or rub elbows in day to day career employment.
Read your Jomon post. Interesting. Must admit, basal this and basal that terminology turns me off. Confusing term that. When does it mean outlier and when does it mean forerunner and why not just use a real population name (with pre or proto or extinct for Ghosties)?
But to each their own. Live and let die.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Oh, you asked why now.
The Trump presidency has made racist tendencies acceptable worldwide. Younguns wouldn't know it but us oldheads can see society has reverted to the 1970's in many circumstances. Jim Crow II is blatant now political racialism is acceptable and promoted now in Israel and the EU & Britain.
Yes, there're many ytes, and others, fighting it. They don't appear to be winning where it counts. The mote racism and racialism incidents occur the more 'polite society' is less shocked by and grows calloused toward it.
Who's outraged by Trump racism anymore? It was never thought an impeachable offense.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Scientists have not said this reconstruction is wrong. It seems to be some Brazilian news media that took it upon themselves to say it is wrong
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
By agenda, I did not mean YOU but the whites you speak of.
quote:Ytes negated Grimaldi negroid features over 50 yrs ago saying such facial features were the result of accidental pressure, faulty reconstrucion, etc. That's part of what I was talking about when mentioning Grimaldi, Iwo Eleru, and no full negro features before 6000 BCE in my 1st post.
The site name 'Grimaldi' is practically verboten. To abolish the memory, Gravettian now names the Grimaldi related industry and same type osteo remains clear across Europe and Russia.
MDW Jeffries (1951) The Negro Enigma West African Review for the infamous "us, not negro" tirade
Pierre Legoux (Ocy. 1962] Proceedings of the French Academy of Sciemces pp 2276-7 explains away prognathism and limb proportion
If it's one thing ytes will not abide it's the presence of the blk with anything approaching the set of extreme facial features they have labeled negro, rarely if at all seen in the media or the professional work force where people greet potential clients or rub elbows in day to day career employment.
Yes I'm well aware of how Euronuts would explain away such features. Again, not just in Grimaldi but also in Sungir which they use "generalized modern" as an excuse. It is also a double-standard at play because when "negroid" features were found among Natufians or even Badarian Egyptians they would explain these as "primitive traits" retained among a white population but when "caucasoid" traits are found in mesolithic Kenyans, viola prehistoric Caucasoids in sub-Sahara.
quote:Read your Jomon post. Interesting. Must admit, basal this and basal that terminology turns me off. Confusing term that. When does it mean outlier and when does it mean forerunner and why not just use a real population name (with pre or proto or extinct for Ghosties)?
But to each their own. Live and let die.
'Basal East Asian' is my own moniker for this population as they seemed to have originated in East Asia north of the Australasians and south of the Siberians to whom they contributed their ancestry to both. Experts are calling them 'Population Y' after Ypykuéra which is the word for ancestor in the Suruí and Karitiana languages.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Oh, you asked why now.
The Trump presidency has made racist tendencies acceptable worldwide. Younguns wouldn't know it but us oldheads can see society has reverted to the 1970's in many circumstances. Jim Crow II is blatant now political racialism is acceptable and promoted now in Israel and the EU & Britain.
Yes, there're many ytes, and others, fighting it. They don't appear to be winning where it counts. The mote racism and racialism incidents occur the more 'polite society' is less shocked by and grows calloused toward it.
Who's outraged by Trump racism anymore? It was never thought an impeachable offense.
I'm no fan of Trump either, but I have to be honest that I don't find the guy racist. I've read his tweets and heard his speeches to see what the mainstream media says and I don't see any of it as racist. He's been a public figure for over 45 years and was never called racist until he ran against Hillary Clinton. Also I find it odd how a white guy like Trump who spent the last several decades investing in black owned businesses, black owned banks, and even donated to historically black colleges, desegregated Mar-a-Lago after buying it and inviting blacks like Snoop Dog, and was encouraged to run as president back in the 90s by his friend Oprah Winfrey would all of a sudden be a white supremacist.
That said, there's no denying that alt-right racists and white supremacists have joined into his bandwagon no doubt conflating his nationalism with their white nationalism despite his policies to help blacks and other minorities.
All in all, I don't think you can blame Trump or any one man for whatever racist activities are at foot especially in academia.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
@ Djehuti
You don’t think it’s suspicious that Trump recently told four congresswomen of color to “go back where they came from” despite three of them having been born in the US? Or that he was on the Birther bandwagon even before running for President? And then there’s his Muslim ban, his stereotyping Mexican immigrants, his wanting immigrants to come from Norway and other affluent European nations rather than Third World “shitholes”, etc...
The man may very well not be too invested in the white nationalist movement, but you can’t deny that he has no problem pandering to that crowd for his own self-interests. Which is pretty scummy in its own right.
Could you please do cite a reputable source claiming Trump has supported all those black businesses, colleges, etc.?
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
What are you talking about? He's a political figure who has express racial intolerance and him having Black folks around is of little importance because there has been many instances of white folks expression whites supremacy with "Black " friends, a example would be dylann roof also racism isn't about racial hatred necessarily.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I made a thread in Deshret on this topic with quotes of the above people commenting so we can stay topic for this thread
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: I made a thread in Deshret on this topic with quotes of the above people commenting so we can stay topic for this thread
That's probably for the better.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Djehuti
• Again, everyone has an agenda. Me. You. Everybody. Nothing nefarious. Without agendas no ambition.
• It wasn't what you call Euronuts just your every day yte anthropologist, ethnologist, paleontologist. You know standard yte western, claiming to be universal, university degreed, respected, academicians et al.
• Ok, I see how you define basal. I dig.
• [comment removed to appropriate thread]
I think my proposal is inline with the below snippets from the Science on PaleoAmericans.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Oh, you asked why now.
The Trump presidency has made racist tendencies acceptable worldwide. Younguns wouldn't know it but us oldheads can see society has reverted to the 1970's in many circumstances. Jim Crow II is blatant now political racialism is acceptable and promoted now in Israel and the EU & Britain.
Yes, there're many ytes, and others, fighting it. They don't appear to be winning where it counts. The mote racism and racialism incidents occur the more 'polite society' is less shocked by and grows calloused toward it.
Who's outraged by Trump racism anymore? It was never thought an impeachable offense.
I'm no fan of Trump either, but I have to be honest that I don't find the guy racist. I've read his tweets and heard his speeches to see what the mainstream media says and I don't see any of it as racist. He's been a public figure for over 45 years and was never called racist until he ran against Hillary Clinton. Also I find it odd how a white guy like Trump who spent the last several decades investing in black owned businesses, black owned banks, and even donated to historically black colleges, desegregated Mar-a-Lago after buying it and inviting blacks like Snoop Dog, and was encouraged to run as president back in the 90s by his friend Oprah Winfrey would all of a sudden be a white supremacist.
That said, there's no denying that alt-right racists and white supremacists have joined into his bandwagon no doubt conflating his nationalism with their white nationalism despite his policies to help blacks and other minorities.
All in all, I don't think you can blame Trump or any one man for whatever racist activities are at foot especially in academia.
It's ironic how he attracts a racist base. Calling Black males who protest against police brutally son's of bitches, and till this day keeps claiming the (exonerated) Central Park Five are guilty of whatever crime.
As posted by Tyler Pasco, a posted at Quora.
quote:What if Obama had acted like Trump?
So an overweight black man in his 40s, known for marrying the women with whom he has cheated on his wives, decides to run for president.
And that's the end of the story. But let's say he gets further.
It comes out, following accusations of rape and sexually harassing teenagers, that there's audio of him admitting to "grabbing [women] by the pussy."
That will certainly be the end, right? I mean, it just proves we can't have a black president in this country!
But he musters through it. Speaks like a 10-year old, lies about his wealth, his whole campaign team quits, is fired, or is later charged with crimes related to money laundering and working on behalf of a foreign agent.
He proceeds to call Europe "shithole countries" and suggests we need more immigrants from Lagos. He proposes a ban on Christians, which is only realized through a ban on anyone from the EU.
He wants to make cuts to the healthcare system that, while imperfect (2008 here) works to some degree. He wants to build a border wall with Canada. After all, "they send their worst people, they're sending their rapists, their murderers, their drugs!"
He begins rounding up every European that overstayed their Visa and sending them packing, and instructs ICE to enforce the law toward children first and foremost.
Had it been anyone other than a rich old white guy, you can imagine the shitstorm.
Here is a Nice article I found, which gives deep look at things. And it's very much in line with "our" poster "Celtic Warrior" was is far right wing:
Right starter, 110 degrees.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: @ Djehuti
You don’t think it’s suspicious that Trump recently told four congresswomen of color to “go back where they came from” despite three of them having been born in the US? Or that he was on the Birther bandwagon even before running for President? And then there’s his Muslim ban, his stereotyping Mexican immigrants, his wanting immigrants to come from Norway and other affluent European nations rather than Third World “shitholes”, etc...
I don't think his tweet was directed at those congresswomen because of their "color" or race but rather his anger of the way they talk about America. Ilhan Omar is from Somalia but his tweet didn't say anything about 'country' only that they should go back to the broken "places" they come from to "fix it up and then come back and show us how it's done"
By the "places" he means either the districts they hail from or he mistook them all as foreign. Either way I don't see how them being non-white was the issue to begin with.
You're right about the "birther" nonsense though I fail to see how that relates to 'race' since the vast majority of blacks in the U.S. were born here just like whites and Obama's mother was white. Race has nothing to do with a person's place of birth and Trump even called out Ted Cruz as not being qualified for the presidency because he's a "Canadian anchor-baby". Yet Cruz is white last time I checked. Also his pathetic reason was the source of the birther conspiracy-- his then friend Hillary Clinton or rather her campaign manager Sidney Blumenthal who not only started the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya but that he was also a drug dealer, not to mention the pornographic pictures of Obama's mother leaked into the internet! Yet funny how nobody called Blumenthal or Hillary racist.
Also there was no "Muslim ban" but rather a ban on a list countries that pose a threat to national security which was first compile under the Obama administration. He also never insulted Mexican immigrants. That is a blatant misquote of a speech he gave in Arizona during his campaign which he referred specifically to illegal immigrants from Mexico and not even all of them. As for the "shithole" comment, that was something claimed by an opponent at a meeting at the oval office and is not something confirmed. Even if it was said, he didn't use "shithole" to describe all 3rd world nations but presumably messed up ones which by the way doesn't pertain to any particular race. According to the claims, his list affluent countries also included South Korea which is not a white country. Funny how despite this claim this past month his administration issued H1B work visas to India and Nigeria.
quote:The man may very well not be too invested in the white nationalist movement, but you can’t deny that he has no problem pandering to that crowd for his own self-interests. Which is pretty scummy in its own right.
I don't know if he is purposely doing that but as a politician that's what they all do-- pander to even the lowest common denominator. Which is why I never support them. I hear his supporters say he's a businessman but he's not anymore and is now another public asshole. He was a private asshole in NY now he's a public one in DC.
quote:Could you please do cite a reputable source claiming Trump has supported all those black businesses, colleges, etc.?
Dude. This was common knowledge back in the 90s. In fact just last month in Atlanta the richest black man in America Robert F. Smith who spoke at Morehouse College graduating class out of charity decided to pay off the student debt of all the members of the graduating class. Smith was a friend and business partner who Trump helped back in the day. The same with Robert L. Johnson the co-founder of BET, and Daymond John the founder of FUBU. There were also a bunch of investors here in Atlanta who got their start as stockbrokers in Wall Street thanks in part to Donald Trump. Again, I find it bizarre that despite Trump's history in civil rights which got him 2 NAACP awards he is now branded a Nazi. Yet the Clintons both had Klansmen as their mentors and aren't called racist at all by the media.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: What are you talking about? He's a political figure who has express racial intolerance and him having Black folks around is of little importance because there has been many instances of white folks expression whites supremacy with "Black " friends, a example would be dylann roof also racism isn't about racial hatred necessarily.
Read my posts above. It's not simply having black "friends". The Clintons had black friends too despite being mentored by klansmen and supporting policies detrimental to minorities. Having black friends and investing money in companies and other institutions owned by blacks is entirely different was something not seen in other white politicians let alone democrats which he himself was/is. I really don't want to get into this issue because for one, I don't like politics. And secondly, I definitely don't like Trump which is why I get aggravated having to defend this man!
Because one thing I hate more is lies, and I hate when people are wrongfully defamed and smeared and yes that includes assholes like Trump.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Scientists have not said this reconstruction is wrong. It seems to be some Brazilian news media that took it upon themselves to say it is wrong
LOL
Ah! So this is the crux of the issue. It's not the scientists but the Brazilian media. It doesn't surprise me considering that Brazil is a racist country whose issues by the way have nothing to do with the current U.S. president but predates him by centuries. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Recall the Lagoa Santa man called Apiuna:
2017
His and other prehistoric folk of South America were indeed tested and shown ancestral ties to modern Native Americans.
And yet the findings of the 2005 Neves & Hubbe cranial study still holds true: Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
Luzia
Luzia Photogrammetry of all skull sides by Cicero Moraes 3D scan of Luzia's skull made with PPT-GUI and Blender 3D, from photography taken by archaeologist Dr. Moacir Elias Santos. Left: Textured wireframe view. On the right: Renderings.
Were Africans the 'first Americans'? 3D reconstruction of 10,000-year-old caveman's face controversially challenges long-held theories about the first settlers
Man's skull was discovered inside a cave during an archaeological dig in south east Brazil 50 years ago Digital imaging by a Brazilian graphic designer shows the features of a 40 to 50-year-old prehistoric man Apiuna bears a close likeness to Luzia, the name given to the 11,500-year-old skull of a young African woman Discovery reignites a decades old argument that Africans were the first colonisers and not Asians
The face of a 10,000 year old African caveman has been revealed for the first time, reigniting the debate over whether the first ancient people to set foot on American soil were African or Asian.
Digital imaging by Brazilian graphic designer, Cicero Moraes - who is not of African decent himself - shows the features of a 40 to 50-year-old prehistoric African man whose face resembles Australian Aborigines.
Lagoa Santa man called Apiuna:
Luzia, Lagoa Santa Brazill, Richard Neave reconstruction 1999
Walter Neves, an anthropologist at the University of São Paulo, who measured the skull suggested that Luzia's features most strongly resembled those of Australian Aboriginal or African peoples. Richard Neave of Manchester University, who created the forensic facial reconstruction of Luzia in 1999 described it as negroid.
Big difference with the 2017 Apiuna reconstruction though. The pencil thin lips which have been speculated by the forensic artist would not be described as African and apart from the hair and skin the general look of it is not look very African at all in my opinion. Looks like an old Italian guy dipped in chocolate
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Strauss is the Brazilian SCIENTIST media is based on.
The blame is where it belongs, on a scientist.
quote:
“Accustomed as we are to the traditional facial reconstruction of Luzia with strongly African features, this new facial reconstruction reflects the physiognomy of the first inhabitants of Brazil far more accurately, displaying the generalized and indistinct features from which the great Amerindian diversity was established over thousands of years,” Strauss said.
Wilkinson's ideological directed retrodeformat Lapo do Santo man officially replaces Luzia as do his people of Luzia/Luzia people likewise not merely replace Luzia but strip her of her name.
The Luzia skulled reconstruction looks Papuan not African.
So what now the skull forensics that delineated Paleos from Moderns just dissipated into the atmosphere to soothe Brazil's negrophobes?
60 years ago science pushed this 'undifferentiated' tauroscat for the early Homo sapiens, an African species who, in the unmasked words of Jeffries in the African Review, are us [the yte race] not negro.
Of course those dismissive of independent Africana know nothing of this and in fact perpetuate current day sentiments saying essentially the same but not so forthright directly or honestly.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Strauss is the Brazilian SCIENTIST media is based on.
The blame is where it belongs, on a scientist.
quote:
“Accustomed as we are to the traditional facial reconstruction of Luzia with strongly African features, this new facial reconstruction reflects the physiognomy of the first inhabitants of Brazil far more accurately, displaying the generalized and indistinct features from which the great Amerindian diversity was established over thousands of years,”Strauss said.
the above is a key quote from André Strauss in Eurek Alert, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
The is a key quote from archeologist André Strauss, who coordinated the Brazilian part of the two DNA articles which came out in late 2018
"An article on the study has just been published in the journal Cell a group of 72 researchers from eight countries, affiliated with the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil, Harvard University in the United States, and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, among others."
^ Here, posted in Feb 23, 2019 an animation of a digitized Luzia image that is tightly based in the Richard Neave 1999 with the Australian/African features. Neave called it negroid and emphasized not mongoloid or typical Native American morphology
So Strauss has this up on his youtube uncritically. Something fishy going on
Yet in his remarks in this Eurek Alert article from 2018 he suggests it's inaccurate. And in the same article the Caroline Wilkinson image is credit to Strauss and her
Yep, the scientist is the culprit not as much Brazilian media. I am changing my opinion here
If he thinks that the Caroline Wilkinson image is more representative of the Lagoa Santa remains he analyzed it's a reasonable opinion but he discredits Luzia as if she could not represents one of the ancestral components at Lagoa Santa
André Strauss It Max Planck agent-scientists up to their racial tricks again, the German-Brazilian connection
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The Posth et al article in Cell is the mainstream optimum. All our old friends are on it!
The Willerslev corresponding author article is independent of the above clique and not as well funded. But then, Willerslev, who went to bat for Original Americans, has plenty published too.
Of course both articles, neither critical of the other, needed Strauss & Crew to paddle the Brazilian artifact and data connection.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The Posth et al article in Cell is the mainstream optimum. All our old friends are on it!
The Willerslev corresponding author article is independent of the above clique and not as well funded. But then, Willerslev, who went to bat for Original Americans, has plenty published too.
Of course both articles, neither critical of the other, needed Strauss & Crew to paddle the Brazilian artifact and data connection.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] ^ the above article again is referring to the journal Science article one of the two articles in published in late 2018 Willerslev is one of the authors as well as André Strauss who has been quoted in related non-journal articles as well
Research Article Early human dispersals within the Americas 2018
Research Article Early human dispersals within the Americas
J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar1,*, Lasse Vinner1,*, Peter de Barros Damgaard1,*, Constanza de la Fuente1,*, Jeffrey Chan2,*, Jeffrey P. Spence3,*, Morten E. Allentoft1, Tharsika Vimala1, Fernando Racimo1, Thomaz Pinotti4, Simon Rasmussen5, Ashot Margaryan1,6, Miren Iraeta Orbegozo1, Dorothea Mylopotamitaki1, Matthew Wooller7, Clement Bataille8, Lorena Becerra-Valdivia9, David Chivall9, Daniel Comeskey9, Thibaut Devièse9, Donald K. Grayson10, Len George11, Harold Harry12, Verner Alexandersen13, Charlotte Primeau13, Jon Erlandson14, Claudia Rodrigues-Carvalho15, Silvia Reis15, Murilo Q. R. Bastos15, Jerome Cybulski16,17,18, Carlos Vullo19, Flavia Morello20, Miguel Vilar21, Spencer Wells22, Kristian Gregersen1, Kasper Lykke Hansen1, Niels Lynnerup13, Marta Mirazón Lahr23, Kurt Kjær1, André Strauss24,25, Marta Alfonso-Durruty26, Antonio Salas27,28, Hannes Schroeder1, Thomas Higham9, Ripan S. Malhi29, Jeffrey T. Rasic30, Luiz Souza31, Fabricio R. Santos4, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas32, Martin Sikora1, Rasmus Nielsen1,33,34, Yun S. Song2,33,35,†, David J. Meltzer1,36,†, Eske Willerslev1,37
and the key quote in the Eurek Alert de-legitimizing Luzia is from Andre Strauss of the same Willerslev Journal Science article as bolded above
The main culprit is coming from this article in Journal Science not the one in Cell
Willerslev added the Spirit Cave data to 14 other new whole genomes from sites scattered from Alaska to Chile and ranging from 10,700 to 500 years old. His data join an even bigger trove published in Cell by a team led by population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston. They analyzed DNA from 49 new samples from Central and South America dating from 10,900 to 700 years old, at more than 1.2 million positions across the genome.
Willerslev added the Spirit Cave data to 14 other new whole genomes from sites scattered from Alaska to Chile and ranging from 10,700 to 500 years old. His data join an even bigger trove published in Cell by a team led by population geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen who led the Science team, worked closely with the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe in Nevada to gain access to some of the new samples. The tribe had been fighting to repatriate 10,700-year-old remains found in Nevada's Spirit Cave and had resisted destructive genetic testing. But when Willerslev visited the tribe in person and vowed to do the work only with their permission, the tribe agreed, hoping the result would bolster their case for repatriation.
___________________________
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
CELL
Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America Cosimo Posth, Nathan Nakatsuka,Iosif Lazaridis, ..., Lars Fehren-Schmitz,Johannes Krause, David Reich
We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 49 individuals forming four parallel time transects in Belize,Brazil, the Central Andes, and the Southern Cone,each dating to at least9,000 years ago.
18calculated by BEAST itself. The tree was visualized and edited for clarity on FigTree (Figs. S12 and S13). The approximate geographicallocations of all samples were obtained either on Genbank or in their original paper, and was plotted on Figs. S14 and S15(listed in Table S10). Of the six Early Holocene human remains from Lagoa Santa, all belonged to mitochondrial haplogroup D4, which contains both D1 and D4h3a subhaplogroups. Three samples (Sumidouro4, mtDNA coverage: 26.54x; Sumidouro6, mtDNA coverage: 48.66x; Sumidouro7, mtDNA coverage: 10.24x) could be confidently placed at a basal position at haplogroup D1, carrying all expected variants for D1 and being negative for further downstream placement (Fig. S12). Out of the other three sequences, only Sumidouro5 (mtDNA coverage: 227.31x) could be placed at D4h3a by automated callers, and the placement of Sumidouro8 (mtDNA coverage: 3.6x) was done by visually inspecting for diagnostic variants (Table S9). The high-coverage D4h3a sequence was found to be negative for downstream variants, and we found a G to A transition at position 4769 shared between Anzick1 (3), Sumidouro5 and Sumidouro8, but negative for all other sampled D4h3a sequences, as supported by both ML and Bayesian analyses (Figs. S11 and S13). The split time between the Anzick1 and Sumidouro5 mitogenomes were estimated to have taken place around 13.5 ka(upper bound: 15.1 ka, lower bound: 12.6 ka), similarly to as proposed by our demographic modelling. The TMRCA for D4h3a was estimated at 15.3 ka(upper bound: 19.4 ka, lower bound:13 ka), in agreementwith previous estimations (9).
Posted by real expert (Member # 22352) on :
He was on of the Max Plank researchers on the ancient Brazilian DNA, and professor at the University of São Paulo
In February 2019 he posted a video based on the Richard Neves reconstruction of 1999 and marked Luzia
So apparently on his youtube he supports that reconstruction
So what is your take on that? Do you think the new reconstruction is accurate or the older one from Neves. Both reconstruction can‘t be accurate.
However if you look at the olmec statues they appear to display "negroid" facial features.
Yet when you see Natives in real life with Olmec features they don‘t really look negroid. So the reconstructions of skulls even when they are pretty accurate give us only an indication how the reconstructed people looked like in real life. Hence even when Neves reconstruction of Luzia was accurate that doesn'mean that she couldn't pass for a Native. There are still Native Americans with broad features like this Luzia.
Modern South American Natives with similar features like Luzia.
Scientists have not said this reconstruction is wrong. It seems to be some Brazilian news media that took it upon themselves to say it is wrong
LOL
Ah! So this is the crux of the issue. It's not the scientists but the Brazilian media. It doesn't surprise me considering that Brazil is a racist country whose issues by the way have nothing to do with the current U.S. president but predates him by centuries.
You are just mad that Afrocentrics can't have the monopoly of politicizing ancient DNA for pushing their agenda. I find stealing other people's history and identity very racist and Afrocentrics are guilty all of that.
Black Americans should stop obsessing with other people's DNA, culture, history or heritage just to distract from their real ancestors and history.
The reconstruction of Luzia, if accurate would still look like some Southern American Natives in real life.
A Native man with the facial features of the Olmec heads.
He was on of the Max Plank researchers on the ancient Brazilian DNA, and professor at the University of São Paulo
In February 2019 he posted a video based on the Richard Neves reconstruction of 1999 and marked Luzia
So apparently on his youtube he supports that reconstruction
So what is your take on that? Do you think the new reconstruction is accurate or the older one from Neves. Both reconstruction can‘t be accurate.
Caroline Wilkinson 2018, retrodeformation of young man, burial 26 Lagoa Sanato
Well you've proved this 2018 digital reconstruction is the inaccurate one
since these Indigenous Brazilians photos match the 1999 Neave reconstruction
^ so this remains accurate
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
@ real expert No one knows those folks in those pictures background as they could be recently mixed with Africans or remnant paleoindians as Mexican has a African population who are somewhat mixed but don't resemble the people in the photos.
You are just mad that Afrocentrics can't have the monopoly of politicizing ancient DNA for pushing their agenda. I find stealing other people's history and identity very racist and Afrocentrics are guilty all of that.
Black Americans should stop obsessing with other people's DNA, culture, history or heritage just to distract from their real ancestors and history.
There is a movement online, Dane Calloway and others getting a lot of views on youtube by saying that most of the modern black population in America today are primarily aboriginal Americans and not primarily Africans and that most were already living in America before the Europeans.
This is incorrect but doesn't seem to me harming the native Americans since it's just talk on youtube and not going anywhere in terms of land rights.
I can also understand how some people would adopt an alternate history if they got tired of being seen as descendants of slaves.
But as for the Luzia reconstruction above. It was made by white European researchers and they were the ones calling it Australian/African/Negroid type
That was done not just by looking at it by also by taking comparative measurements of the skull.
So the said "Africaness" or "Austrailian Aboriginalness" of this 1999 reconstruction was never part of one of the famous Afrocentric books which are more prominant in the early 90s and earlier
Afrocentricity is in decline and is not nearly as active as it was in the 90s so don't even worry about it. There is nothing at stake for you
Also several of the most famous Afrocentric authors have passed away
_____________________
List of prominent authors Pile of books on Afrocentrism
Marimba Ani,[61] professor, author and activist: Yurugu: An Afrikan-centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior (Trenton: Africa World Press, 1994). Molefi Kete Asante, professor, author: Afrocentricity: The Theory of Social Change; The Afrocentric Idea; The Egyptian Philosophers: Ancient African Voices from Imhotep to Akhenaten Jacob Carruthers, Egyptologist; founding director of the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilization; founder and director of the Kemetic Institute, Chicago Cheikh Anta Diop,[62][63] author: The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality; Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology; Precolonial Black Africa; The Cultural Unity of Black Africa: The Domains of Patriarchy and of Matriarchy in Classical Antiquity; The Peopling of Ancient Egypt & the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script Yosef Ben-Jochannan, author: African Origins of Major "Western Religions"; Black Man of the Nile and His Family; Africa: Mother of Western Civilization; New Dimensions in African History; The Myth of Exodus and Genesis and the Exclusion of Their African Origins; Africa: Mother of Western Civilization; Abu Simbel to Ghizeh: A Guide Book and Manual Jones, Gayl (1998). The Healing. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-6314-9. The protagonist of this novel describes her ongoing daily experiences in the US using a consistently Afrocentric perspective. Runoko Rashidi,[64] author: Introduction to African Civilizations; The global African community: The African presence in Asia, Australia, and the South Pacific J.A. Rogers, author: Sex and Race: Negro-Caucasian Mixing in All Ages and All Lands: The Old World; Nature Knows No Color Line; Sex and Race: A History of White, Negro, and Indian Miscegenation in the Two Americas: The New World; 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof: A Short Cut to the World History of the Negro Ivan van Sertima, author: They Came before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America, African Presence in Early Europe ISBN 0-88738-664-4; Blacks in Science Ancient and Modern; African Presence in Early Asia; African Presence in Early America; Early America Revisited; Egypt Revisited: Journal of African Civilizations; Nile Valley Civilizations; Egypt: Child of Africa (Journal of African Civilizations, V. 12); The Golden Age of the Moor (Journal of African Civilizations, Vol. 11, Fall 1991); Great Black Leaders: Ancient and Modern; Great African Thinkers: Cheikh Anta Diop[65] Chancellor Williams, author: The Destruction of Black Civilization: Great Issues of a Race from 4500 B.C. to 2000 A.D. Théophile Obenga, author: Ancient Egypt and Black Africa: a student's handbook for the study of Ancient Egypt in philosophy, linguistics, and gender relations Asa Hilliard, III, author: SBA: The Reawakening of the African Mind; The Teachings of Ptahhotep
is
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by real expert: Black Americans should stop obsessing with other people's DNA, culture, history or heritage just to distract from their real ancestors and history.
You can dispute "Afrocentric" claims all you want, but barbs like yours targeting African-Americans in general are (at the very least) bordering on plain racist. It's like you have this beef with the African-American ethnic group that you're conflating them with "Afrocentrics" (never mind that many prominent "Afrocentric" writers throughout history, most notably Cheikh Anta Diop, haven't actually been American but African or Afro-Caribbean).
I will report posts like this to the admins in a moment, mark my words.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by real expert: Black Americans should stop obsessing with other people's DNA, culture, history or heritage just to distract from their real ancestors and history.
You can dispute "Afrocentric" claims all you want, but barbs like yours targeting African-Americans in general are (at the very least) bordering on plain racist. It's like you have this beef with the African-American ethnic group that you're conflating them with "Afrocentrics" (never mind that many prominent "Afrocentric" writers throughout history, most notably Cheikh Anta Diop, haven't actually been American but African or Afro-Caribbean).
I will report posts like this to the admins in a moment, mark my words.
The term "Euronut" has been used 4 times in he thread. Do you think it's acceptable or is it asking for trouble?
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by real expert:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Scientists have not said this reconstruction is wrong. It seems to be some Brazilian news media that took it upon themselves to say it is wrong
LOL
Ah! So this is the crux of the issue. It's not the scientists but the Brazilian media. It doesn't surprise me considering that Brazil is a racist country whose issues by the way have nothing to do with the current U.S. president but predates him by centuries.
You are just mad that Afrocentrics can't have the monopoly of politicizing ancient DNA for pushing their agenda. I find stealing other people's history and identity very racist and Afrocentrics are guilty all of that.
Black Americans should stop obsessing with other people's DNA, culture, history or heritage just to distract from their real ancestors and history.
The reconstruction of Luzia, if accurate would still look like some Southern American Natives in real life.
A Native man with the facial features of the Olmec heads.
The poster your replying to is not even Black-American but Asian. And his background has little relevance to this discussion. In the Egyptology section we don't tolerate trolling. Anyways, you earned yourself a 3 day vacation.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by real expert: Black Americans should stop obsessing with other people's DNA, culture, history or heritage just to distract from their real ancestors and history.
You can dispute "Afrocentric" claims all you want, but barbs like yours targeting African-Americans in general are (at the very least) bordering on plain racist. It's like you have this beef with the African-American ethnic group that you're conflating them with "Afrocentrics" (never mind that many prominent "Afrocentric" writers throughout history, most notably Cheikh Anta Diop, haven't actually been American but African or Afro-Caribbean).
I will report posts like this to the admins in a moment, mark my words.
The term "Euronut" has been used 4 times in he thread. Do you think it's acceptable or is it asking for trouble?
"Euronut" is not targeting a specific ethnic group.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what about "Afronut" ?
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what about "Afronut" ?
Same.
Did you actually read my post calling "real expert" out to begin with? You should have picked up that my problem with him went beyond what he had to say about "Afrocentrics".
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
"Euronut" targets white people. It's race baiting
Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
@Lioness How? You can support ideas or talking points inline with what is seen as Eurocetric without being European.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Unfortunately the term Afrocentric was co-opted by the media and popularized into something quite unrecognizable by Africalogy degree holders from major mainstream universities who use the term and apply it to themselves.
For instance Ivan Van Sertima went to his grave fighting against any and all such notions he was Afrocentric, nevermind Blackcentric/Afreccentric which is what the common person really means by 'Afrocentric'.
Eurocentricity is unavoidable by all scholarship. Many Euro envisaged concepts pervade all Africana scholarship. Face it, the system of education most everywhere in the world is a colonial European inheritance.
Eg, West African schools still credit Berbers and Yeminis for creating the W Afr empires, though that can largely be attributed to 'Islamocentricity' of the major tarikh W Afr authors themselves. Ironically, it's Euros who overturned thoze submissive errors and placed the agency for civilization in African hands.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @Lioness How? You can support ideas or talking points inline with what is seen as Eurocetric without being European.
"Eurocentric" is reasonable. You could say "Eurocentric" or "Afrocentric" in an academic debate or lecture.
But "Euronut" and "Afronut" is infantile and derogatory and it inspires fights.
people don't like being called nuts, it's troll talk
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Continuing on topic
Precision to falsehoods about Strauss.
Strauss is a senior but not equally contributing author of the Cell article but is neither for the Science article.
Strauss serves, among other posts, a university museum in the country hosting Luzia, Apiuna, and the so-called "people of Luzia." He also serves a paleo institute in Germany.
Both Cell and Science articles rely on Strauss as Brazilian 'liaison' serving as an important team member on both, providing: • conceptualization, resources, and supervision in the Cell; • archaeological and bioanthropological analyses in the Science. Strauss has himself written extensively on early Holocene cultures in Brazil.
Strauss and others from both teams are quoted and paraphrased by reporters in the media of Brazil and other nations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Precision to falsehoods about Strauss.
Strauss is a senior but not equally contributing author of the Cell article but is neither for the Science article.
I didn't notice Strauss was in the Cell article authors list but I see he is. And he's also in the journal Science article author list also
But for him to be stepping out and talk about features not being accurate is not a part of either article. They are genetic research articles. I have read each one.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Again, to stem off confusion
quote:
Both Cell and Science articles rely on Strauss as Brazilian 'liaison' serving as an important team member on both, providing: • conceptualization, resources, and supervision in the Cell; • archaeological and bioanthropological analyses in the Science. Strauss has himself written extensively on early Holocene cultures in Brazil.
In any event, the pre 9000 yr old Brazilians are only partial ancestral to the original peoples of pre Brazil. The Lusitanias who founded Brazil and other Old World migrants there who run the gov and infrastructure are totally unrelated and heretofor distance themselves from the peoples they conquered.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
(wrong thread, post deleted)
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
@ lioness
Wrong thread? This isn't the place to have conversations on the recent mass shootings.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
^^
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The Yanomami are also called the Yanomamö (pronounced Yah-no-mah-muh), and are one of the largest indigenous tribes in the Amazon. Some authors have used various other names and spellings, including Guaharibo, Guaica, Guajaribo, Ianomâmi, Yanoama, Yanomama, Yanomame, and Xirianá. There are approximately 30,000 Yanomami living in southern Venezuela and northern Brazil. Although they were first contacted in 1929, their culture has remained relatively unchanged until recently due to their isolated locations on unnavigable upland streams rather than living on the main rivers
Exploring the Mitochondrial DNA Variability of the Amazonian Yanomami 2016
Ninety eight percent of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences analyzed belonged to Native American haplogroups, while 2% belonged to African haplogroups.
Haplotype data are reported in Supporting InformationTable S2, along with their frequencies. Except for two samples (1.94%), which were classified within macro-haplogroup L, all of the rest were classified within NativeAmerican mtDNA haplogroups A2, B2, C1, D1, and D4(Achilli et al., 2008). These haplogroups are distributed inthe sample as follows: 28 subjects (27.18%) belonged tohaplogroup A2; 28 (27.18%) to haplogroup B4, 23 (22.34%)to haplogroup C1, and 22 (21.36%) to haplogroup D, 20(19.42%) belonged to haplogroup D and 2 belonged tohaplogroup D4 (1.94%). Therefore, the Native American haplogroups are relatively evenly distributed in this sample.
Accordingly, the Yanomami currently living in the Rio Negro Basin are experiencing the consequences of contact with colonizers, in particular gold miners (Cabralet al., 2010; Paula et al., 2002). Therefore, in ancient times, the Rio Negro might have functioned as an important hub of communication for Amazonian people as well,so that—unlike the other Yanomami groups—the SantaIsabel group may have had contact with other Amazonian populations.This model could also explain the current genetic com-position of the rural population from Santa Isabel. Differ-ent Amazonian Native American groups contributed tothe population, making it ethnically admixed, as sug-gested by Saloum de Neves Manta et al. (2013). Theseauthors also identified, through autosomal AIM-indelanalysis, an African component in the Santa Isabel popu-lation. The same component was observed, at a low fre-quency, in the Santa Isabel Yanomami mtDNAs analyzedin the present study.
Other phenom-ena in addition to founder effects could be the cause of thegenetic structure of the Santa Isabel Yanomami sample,such as the introduction of new African and Native Amer-ican haplotypes by gold miners who were probably highlyadmixed. The latter hypothesis would also be supportedby the gold rush in the Rio Negro basin and by the noncor-relation between genetic and geographic distances shownby the Santa Isabel Yanomami and its neighboring non-Yanomami populations. Furthermore, geographical fac-tors may have influenced the patterns of mtDNA diversityin South American populations (Bisso-Machado et al.,2012)
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Journal of the University of Sao Paulo says
quote:In addition to the scientific publications, the new genetic data also allowed to create a new face for the old population of Lagoa Santa. Forensic reconstruction expert Caroline Wilkinson's proposal from Liverpool John Moores University in England is based on information from the article published Thursday in Cell. The new image was created from the retroformed digital skull model of the archaeological site of Lapa do Santo and brings a face, it is expected, more accurate of the first inhabitants of Brazil.
Google xlation
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Journal of the University of Sao Paulo says
quote:In addition to the scientific publications, the new genetic data also allowed to create a new face for the old population of Lagoa Santa. Forensic reconstruction expert Caroline Wilkinson's proposal from Liverpool John Moores University in England is based on information from the article published Thursday in Cell. The new image was created from the retroformed digital skull model of the archaeological site of Lapa do Santo and brings a face, it is expected, more accurate of the first inhabitants of Brazil.
Google xlation
Is the above a reasonable statement or not? This particular statement does not mention Luzia.
As regards to Luzia there are two or more different interpretations possible of other non-journal articles and that should not be the case in my opinion
a) the Luzia reconstruction is accurate but this individual is not representative of the ancient population of Lagoa Santa
OR
b) the Luzia reconstruction is not accurate The Skull structure is the foundation of a reconstruction but alone cannot predict every aspect of how the person might have looked DNA evidence, it's ethnological associations is also considered by forensic artists in reconstructing soft tissue features not informed by the skull. New DNA has come to light and has shown the Luzia reconstruction's features to be incorrect
______________________________
The following is my interpretation of these skulls>>
Both reconstructions are legitimate. More than one type of skull was found in Lagoa Santa. The reason for this unknown. DNA was not recoverable from the Luzia skull
.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
We have seen the Luzia replacement reconstruction is not based on Luzia's skull at all. Some male individual from 2500 yrs later deformed computer enhanced image virtual skull and undifferentiated 'first human populations' ideology informed the new replacement. Are there no available intact skulls or upper crania for physical anthropology forensic reconstruction?
Unbacked by either Cell or Science team members Strauss of the University of São Paulo (USP) has successfully reinvented Luzia going as far as to steal her name to label a group that's temporally unconnected with the Luzia dig. A 'Luzia people' name can also rightfully belong to the fossil set held by the Natural History Museum of Denmark in Copenhagen which all were excavated from the Lagoa Santa site and lived near the same time Luzia did.
The OP blames the Cell article institites but one of them, the University of São Paulo, is at fault. It's official journal says the retrodeform digital model "skull" was fleshed based on DNA in the Cell article.
We have a case parallel with Grimaldi man whose actual physical features were dismissed by self serving ideology inimical to a certain forensic phenotype ytes find distasteful. The real Luzia and Apiuna reconstructions resemble each other.[*]
2:3, they represent the first Original American population of Lagoa Santo. Though they look a lot like a Papuan and an Andaman, they have no discernable genomic link to Oceania peoples.
Let's not forget the people of Lagoa Santa, as well as other first South Americans, weren't misnomered PaleoAmericans because their skull/ face was undifferentiated. The PaleoAmerican inventor, Peter Lund, over 100 yrs ago didn't see the accepted features of living Amerindians. This lead to the false misapplication Paleos were unrelated to all other Amerindians.
Today we know better and a transdisciplinary analysis informs us all humans native to the Americas no matter what era all derive from the same biological root regardless of unexpected faces.
A South American people called Population Y does have an Oceanian genetic signal. Strauss doesn't deny that finding of the Science team, a team he also served on. He just doesn't know how to deal with/interpret it. Thing is, none of the long headed oldest Lagoa Santa individuals carry an Oceania signal.
[*] I see local breeding population similarity in • shape and size of eye sockets • distance between eye sockets • nose flat between eyes • emphasized cheeks • short nose
Luzia has no jaw so no idea she had gonial jutting. Also need Apiuna's skull for truer comparison.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
The real Luzia and Apiuna reconstructions resemble each other.
Luzia, by Richard Neave, 1999
Apiuna by Cicero Moraes Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Another good insider sourced report like the JUSP is from Agencia FAPESP who have funded research projects.
Not to knock Brazil's cyber media but JUSP and FAPESP are not just media reporters. They're organizations directly responsible for finding the fossils under question.
Is it time we moved on to the more than 14,000 yr old Monte Verde way down in Chile. What propelled migration south in just 300 yrs from Oregon way? Cosmology/Spirituality/Religion?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Peștera cu Oase 2
Peștera cu Oase 2 reconstruction Kennis & Kennis (The studio that made the Cheddar man reconstruction) Exhibited in the Neanderthal Museum in Mettmann, Germany.
Peștera cu Oase 2 reconstruction by Richard Neave (same creator of Luzia bust)
Peștera cu Oase , meaning "The Cave with Bones") located near the city Anina, in southwestern Romania, where some of the oldest European early modern human (EEMH) remains, between 37,000 and 42,000 years old, have been found About 6-9% of the genome is Neanderthal in origin. This is the highest percentage of archaic introgression found in an anatomically modern human The autosomal DNA of Oase 1 by Fu et al. (2015) indicates that he (as it was a male) may have shared more alleles with modern East Asian populations than with modern Europeans. However, Oase shared equal alleles with Mesolithic Europeans and East Eurasians suggesting non pre LGM-European admixture in modern Europeans. "Oase 2" belongs to the basal subclade of mitochondrial DNA haplogroup N . "Oase 2" nor "Oase 1" are particularly close genetically to any modern human populations.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Luzia has no jaw so no idea she had gonial jutting. Also need Apiuna's skull for truer comparison.
The two skulls facially reconstructed by Moraes (Apiuna on the right, Diarum on the left) (Image: Cicero Moraes Caters News)
________________________________
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
The Ironic part of this post just proves what most posters are saying, that the 1st Luiza reconstruction was accurate and was only re-done on silly and unsubstantiated reasons, considering her features are still found among people in the region.
quote:Originally posted by real expert:
The reconstruction of Luzia, if accurate would still look like some Southern American Natives in real life.
A Native man with the facial features of the Olmec heads.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: that the 1st Luiza reconstruction was accurate and was only re-done on silly and unsubstantiated reasons,
The Luzia reconstruction was not redone
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: A South American people called Population Y does have an Oceanian genetic signal. Strauss doesn't deny that finding of the Science team, a team he also served on. He just doesn't know how to deal with/interpret it. Thing is, none of the long headed oldest Lagoa Santa individuals carry an Oceania signal.
A slight correction: 'Population Y' is the designation given to the ghost population in Asia ancestral to some Amerindians as well as some Australasians. Also this Y signal is also found among Aleutian Islanders off the coast of Alaska which suggest a coastal route among these people.
But I also am curious as to the 'Austric' or 'Africoid' appearance of Paleo-Americans.
What about Naia of Mexico?
Her cranium above displays said features but her DNA was/is being mapped. As to whether she has the Population Y signal, I don't know. What I do know is that she carries an early form of mtDNA D1. While D1 one of the main maternal clades of Amerindians today, all other clades of D are found in Asia.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Thx 4/t precision.
Just skim reading I got an erroneous impression of PopY re Surui and Kariwhatchacallems, hahaha.
Man, something funny's going on. It's Anglocentrics assuming superiority over LusoHispanics and Francophones.
We already know about it in Afr iron dating. But check LusoHispanic scientists on S Amer artifacts bonfied at 18,000 yrs old and, maybe not as strongly vetted, up to 40,000 yr old tools/camps.
I tink Tyranno brought up MSA split of E Asia and Oceania types from common roots. Now there's this minor sporadic unexplained West Oceania signal in the Americas. Hmm.
I had abandoned xPacific peopling which you still entertain but now I question Beringia only entrance of Hss into the W Hemisphere. Is there any archaeo backing up Beringia habitation that Anglos insist is a fact while denying widespread preClovis S Amer the LusoHispans uncovered?
The more I learn The less I know
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Thx 4/t precision.
Just skim reading I got an erroneous impression of PopY re Surui and Kariwhatchacallems, hahaha.
Man, something funny's going on. It's Anglocentrics assuming superiority over LusoHispanics and Francophones.
We already know about it in Afr iron dating. But check LusoHispanic scientists on S Amer artifacts bonfied at 18,000 yrs old and, maybe not as strongly vetted, up to 40,000 yr old tools/camps.
I tink Tyranno brought up MSA split of E Asia and Oceania types from common roots. Now there's this minor sporadic unexplained West Oceania signal in the Americas. Hmm.
I had abandoned xPacific peopling which you still entertain but now I question Beringia only entrance of Hss into the W Hemisphere. Is there any archaeo backing up Beringia habitation that Anglos insist is a fact while denying widespread preClovis S Amer the LusoHispans uncovered?
The more I learn The less I know
Whether it is Anglocentrics or Latinocentrics (including Portuguese speakers) they are all forms of the same Eurocentric superiority complex. As Lioness pointed out the whole debacle of 'Luzia's People' not really looking austric was not the claims of the scientists but of the Brazilian media. So the bias problem is far more extensive than just the science and academia but the media as well.
I forgot to add to my last post that mt hg D1 was also found in Asia but interestingly enough among Jomon as explained here. Thus, the Jomon may very well be somewhat of a missing link between Asians and Paleo-American ancestors.
That said, my Pacific Island hopping theory is not a straight across the Pacific but rather is something intermediate to that and the Beringian theory. physical anthropologist Walter Neves and geneticist Pontus Skoglund postulate that due to the stereotypical tropical features of Luzia and her like as well as the Population Y signal, it is probable that the migration route may have taken place around the northern Pacific rim either along the Beringian coastline or just south of it along a chain of islands. As for Beringian archaeology it is quite scant no doubt to Beringia now being submerged but it still exist on both sides of the Bering Strait. Earlier in this thread I already cited one study from last year on late Pleistocene infants in Alaska here. There is another study from a couple months back on Holocene baby teeth in northeastern Siberia here.
The problem however is that I think too much emphasis is placed on Siberian populations and not enough on coastal East Asian populations of that time i.e. Population Y.
Ice Age Beringia
Possible Prehistoric Migration Routes
Probable Prehistoric Migration routes suggested by physical remains and DNA Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Whether it is Anglocentrics or Latinocentrics (including Portuguese speakers) they are all forms of the same Eurocentric superiority complex. As Lioness pointed out the whole debacle of 'Luzia's People' not really looking austric was not the claims of the scientists but of the Brazilian media. So the bias problem is far more extensive than just the science and academia but the media as well.
No, I had revised my position on page 2 My guess was not directly a racial superiority motive but rather some white Brazilians, and yes in fact, one of the scientists who is a professor in Brazil and others perhaps not liking that idea that ancient Brazilians could have looked as Richard Neave, who made the Luzia reconstruction of 1999 said had "Negroid" features and Walter Neves, the head of the research team said most strongly resembled Australian Aborigines.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] Strauss is the Brazilian SCIENTIST media is based on.
The blame is where it belongs, on a scientist.
quote:
“Accustomed as we are to the traditional facial reconstruction of Luzia with strongly African features, this new facial reconstruction reflects the physiognomy of the first inhabitants of Brazil far more accurately, displaying the generalized and indistinct features from which the great Amerindian diversity was established over thousands of years,”Strauss said.
the above is a key quote from André Strauss in Eurek Alert, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
The is a key quote from archeologist André Strauss, who coordinated the Brazilian part of the two DNA articles which came out in late 2018
"An article on the study has just been published in the journal Cell a group of 72 researchers from eight countries, affiliated with the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil, Harvard University in the United States, and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, among others."
Yep, the scientist is the culprit not as much Brazilian media. I am changing my opinion here
If he thinks that the Caroline Wilkinson image is more representative of the Lagoa Santa remains he analyzed it's a reasonable opinion but he discredits Luzia as if she could not represents one of the ancestral components at Lagoa Santa
André Strauss It Max Planck agent-scientists up to their racial tricks again, the German-Brazilian connection
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Probable Prehistoric Migration routes suggested by physical remains and DNA
.
or this
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
By the way, despite all the wishful thoughts and/or fusses about what early Lagoa Santa people looked like I'm still waiting for studies refuting the findings of Neves et al. such as this one from 1999:
LAPA VERMELHA IV HOMINID 1: MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN All this information indicates that the Americas were first occupied by a generalized population of Homo sapiens very similar to the one that departed from East Asia to Australia around 50,000 B.P., and whose remote origins ultimately can be traced back to Africa (Lahr, 1995; Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1997). This morphology is primarily characterized by very long and narrow skulls, short and narrow faces, with short orbits and noses. A process of in situ microevolution leading to mongolization cannot be ruled out to explain what is seen in terms of cranial morphology in later native American populations, namely broad faces and vaults, tall faces with tall orbits and noses. As Lahr (1995) emphasized, this would have implicated a tremendous amount of convergent evolution in Asia and in the Americas. This becomes even more difficult to accept if we recall that Sutter (1997) has suggested that dental morphology has also changed from a sundadont to a sinodont pattern in prehistoric coastal Chile and Peru during the Middle Holocene. Another indicator that weakens the local microevolution argument is that, at least in South America, the evidence seems to point to a major population replacement around 8,000 to 9,000 years B.P., when the generalized morphology was abruptly replaced by the classic Mongoloid morphology (Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1996a).
By the way, here is a 2005 study from Richard Sutter reaffirming his prior findings:
You add up the sundadonty dental morphology along with the cranial morphology and the Population Y genetics, and it's too much to evidence think there was one homogenous population from Beringia that settled the Americas.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Probable Prehistoric Migration routes suggested by physical remains and DNA
.
or this
.
As I've explained several times in this thread which apparently you missed, the original unedited graphic at the top is most accurate because Population Y did NOT originate in Australasia but in East Asia somewhere in the Chinese coast as they are ancestral to BOTH some Paleoindians AND some Australasians.
As Reich & Skoglund et ales. said: Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent genetic contribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Andre Strauss Here's his youtube
^ Here, posted in Feb 23, 2019 an animation of a digitized Luzia image that is tightly based in the Richard Neave 1999 with the Australian/African features. Neave called it negroid and emphasized not mongoloid or typical Native American morphology
So Strauss has this up on his youtube uncritically. Something fishy going on
Yet in his remarks in this Eurek Alert article from 2018 he suggests it's inaccurate. And in the same article the Caroline Wilkinson image is credit to Strauss and her
Yep, the scientist is the culprit not as much Brazilian media. I am changing my opinion here
If he thinks that the Caroline Wilkinson image is more representative of the Lagoa Santa remains he analyzed it's a reasonable opinion but he discredits Luzia as if she could not represents one of the ancestral components at Lagoa Santa
André Strauss It Max Planck agent-scientists up to their racial tricks again, the German-Brazilian connection
Speaking of the 4th Reich scientist of Max Planck, do you realize Brazil is one of the countries in South America many Nazis fled to?? The other countries were Argentina and Chile and the Nazis there have literally replicated German towns there and continued human experiments and 'Aryan' eugenic breeding programs up until the late 90s!!
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: By the way, despite all the wishful thoughts and/or fusses about what early Lagoa Santa people looked like I'm still waiting for studies refuting the findings of Neves et al. such as this one from 1999:
LAPA VERMELHA IV HOMINID 1: MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN All this information indicates that the Americas were first occupied by a generalized population of Homo sapiens very similar to the one that departed from East Asia to Australia around 50,000 B.P., and whose remote origins ultimately can be traced back to Africa (Lahr, 1995; Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1997). This morphology is primarily characterized by very long and narrow skulls, short and narrow faces, with short orbits and noses. A process of in situ microevolution leading to mongolization cannot be ruled out to explain what is seen in terms of cranial morphology in later native American populations, namely broad faces and vaults, tall faces with tall orbits and noses. As Lahr (1995) emphasized, this would have implicated a tremendous amount of convergent evolution in Asia and in the Americas. This becomes even more difficult to accept if we recall that Sutter (1997) has suggested that dental morphology has also changed from a sundadont to a sinodont pattern in prehistoric coastal Chile and Peru during the Middle Holocene. Another indicator that weakens the local microevolution argument is that, at least in South America, the evidence seems to point to a major population replacement around 8,000 to 9,000 years B.P., when the generalized morphology was abruptly replaced by the classic Mongoloid morphology (Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1996a).
By the way, here is a 2005 study from Richard Sutter reaffirming his prior findings:
You add up the sundadonty dental morphology along with the cranial morphology and the Population Y genetics, and it's too much to evidence think there was one homogenous population from Beringia that settled the Americas.
For what it's worth, the EurekAlert article mentions that Luzia's people could represent a separate (even if related) wave from the ancestors of modern Native South Americans.
quote:"From the genetic standpoint, the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of the first Amerindians," said archeologist André Menezes Strauss, who coordinated the Brazilian part of the study. Strauss is affiliated with the University of São Paulo's Museum of Archeology and Ethnology (MAE-USP).
"Surprisingly, the members of this first lineage of South Americans left no identifiable descendants among today's Amerindians," he said. "Some 9,000 years ago their DNA disappears completely from the fossil samples and is replaced by DNA from the first migratory wave, prior to the Clovis culture. All living Amerindians are descendants of this first wave. We don't yet know why the genetic stock of the Lagoa Santa people disappeared."
One possible reason for the disappearance of DNA from the second migration is that it was diluted in the DNA of the Amerindians who are descendants of the first wave and cannot be identified by existing methods of genetic analysis.
That might account for Luzia's people not looking quite the same physically (e.g. their less "Sinodont" features) as extant Natives in the region.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ This brings us back to the question of exactly how the first human migrants entered America. Did they all come in through Beringia? If so, these Beringians were obviously of a heterogenous nature as shown in the study I brought up earlier here. But that still does not rule out the coastal migration route south of Beringia as well.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ This brings us back to the question of exactly how the first human migrants entered America. Did they all come in through Beringia? If so, these Beringians were obviously of a heterogenous nature as shown in the study I brought up earlier here. But that still does not rule out the coastal migration route south of Beringia as well.
If Luzia's ancestors were indeed darker-skinned and less Sinodont-looking than the other early colonists, I think they'd be good candidates for taking the southern coastal route as you said.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: For what it's worth, the EurekAlert article mentions that Luzia's people could represent a separate (even if related) wave from the ancestors of modern Native South Americans.
I'm sorry but this article is garbage and you shouldn't be pointing out it's worth. There is no DNA for Luzia and no other human remains were found at the particular site. Right in the sub headline it says "distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong" and then if we look at the photo the capition reiterates "Distinctly African features attributed to Luzia were wrong " And the attribution of the photo is to one of the Max Plank research a professor in Brazil, André Strauss and British forensic artist Caroline Wilkinson and Straus says
quote: "Accustomed as we are to the traditional facial reconstruction of Luzia with strongly African features, this new facial reconstruction reflects the physiognomy of the first inhabitants of Brazil far more accurately, displaying the generalized and indistinct features from which the great Amerindian diversity was established over thousands of years," Strauss said.
This is BS. There is nothing wrong with the Luzia. There was no need to even mention Luzia. The article in Cell and the journal Science was DNA analysis of remains at a different site and 2,500 years younger
So this term "Luzia's people" is a dishonest term to try to discredit the Luzia reconstruction. They have DNA only from a different site but they call remains at this site "Luzia's people" to suggest that Luzia has the same DNA and therefore the Richard Neave 1999 reconstruction is wrong. Yet months after Strauss has an animation of the Luzia reconstruction on his youtube contradicting his own remarks in this article.
There is nothing wrong with the Luzia reconstruction. It is simply different from other particular select remains nearby.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL So now they are going to question and argue as to whether Luzia's features constitute 'southern' (negroid/australoid) features. Sounds like what happened to Egyptian anthropology.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: If Luzia's ancestors were indeed darker-skinned and less Sinodont-looking than the other early colonists, I think they'd be good candidates for taking the southern coastal route as you said.
I find it interesting how the population Y signal survives in Eskimo natives of the Aleutian Islands. This itself should be a clue as to the coastal route.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
From where I sit
There are no "people of Luzia." There is a person Eurocentrically named Luzia. There are Holocene people of Lagoa Santa Brazil. They are of various times and uncovered by various digs.
Perhaps listing the finds by dig would shed some kinda light as to if there is one people of Lagoa Santa or differing Lagoa Santa peoples in regard to • settlement date(s) • settlement continuity • cranial form(s) • general nonmetric facial features • post cranial dimensions • ethnicity, ie., - cuisine - tools - abodes - ornament - pastimes - other cultural accoutrements that delineate ethnicity. Unfortunately language's one ethnic feature we can't look into, but, it's no clincher. Same for clothing.
Really? The Big Fish is the Fishtail blade making peoples before 14,000 yrs ago maybe up to 40,000 yrs ago
Was it nearly the same time two wings of a more primary split south and east to become West Oceanians north and east becoming Fishtail Americans maybe?
Oh, yeah PopY signalled Inuit were brought up. Any other Circumpolar peoples show it? I mean did the signal enter from the Polars or they got it from Alaskan former Asians or whatever else ?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You bring up some interesting points. Whatever you want to call the woman (Luzia or other) her people have been studied for years by the likes of Walter Neves, Richard Sutter and others and they all agree that human remains in South America dated to 10k bp or earlier possess totally different features from modern Amerindians having 'southern' features as well as sundadonty instead of sinodonty. The same is true of 'Naia' girl of Mexico. A couple millennia later you have a different more modern Amerindian populations in the area. You also have traces of the Population Y signal.
All of this shows that the Americas were settled by heterogenous peoples including those from relatively more southerly areas of Asia.
quote:earlier posted by Tukuler: Another good insider sourced report like the JUSP is from Agencia FAPESP who have funded research projects.
Not to knock Brazil's cyber media but JUSP and FAPESP are not just media reporters. They're organizations directly responsible for finding the fossils under question.
**Is it time we moved on to the more than 14,000 yr old Monte Verde way down in Chile. What propelled migration south in just 300 yrs from Oregon way? Cosmology/Spirituality/Religion?**
^ In regards to your last questions above there is no way of knowing why the migration occurred but if it's true the migration from Oregon to Chile happened that quickly then it can only mean it occurred via a coastal route. Even Sutters says the majority of early Sundadont Americans is found in Chile near the coastline.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: HN5/48 aka NAIA
DOI: 10.1126/science.1252619, 750 (2014);344Science et al.James C. Chatters and
Modern Native Americans Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans
Here we report a nearly complete, Late Pleistocene–age human skeleton HN5/48 with intact dentition from Hoyo Negro (HN), a submerged collapse chamber in the Sac Actun cave system, eastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Fig. 1).
The ancestry of the earliest Americans is still debated, however, because the oldest skeletal re-mains from the Americas (>9 ka, the Paleoameri-cans) consistently fail to group morphometrically with modern Native Americans, Siberians, and other northeast Asians (6). Paleoamericans ex-hibit longer, narrower crania and smaller, shorter,more projecting faces than later Native Americans (7). In nearly all cases, they are morphologically most similar to modern peoples of Africa who tend to exhibit such specialized (Sinodont)traits as winged, shovel-shaped upper incisors, three-rooted lower first molars, and small or absent thirdmolars; from Paleoamericans, who exhibit a less spe-cialized (Sundadont) morphology (7). These differ-ences suggest that America was colonized byseparate migration events from different parts of Eurasia(11) or by multiple colonization events from Beringia(12), or that evolutionary changes occurred in theAmericas after colonization (13).
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 YucatanPeninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and hasPaleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probablyresulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry
. This 13- to 12-ka Paleoamerican skeleton thus suggests that Paleoamericans represent an early population expansion out of Beringia, not an earlier migration fromelsewhere in Eurasia. This is consistent with hypotheses that both Paleoamericans and NativeAmericans derive from a single source population, whether or not all share a lineal relationship.In light of this finding, the differences in craniofacial form between Native Americans and theirPaleoamerican predecessors are best explained as evolutionary changes that postdate the divergence of Beringians from their Siberian ancestors.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: @ Djehuti
You don’t think it’s suspicious that Trump recently told four congresswomen of color to “go back where they came from” despite three of them having been born in the US? Or that he was on the Birther bandwagon even before running for President? And then there’s his Muslim ban, his stereotyping Mexican immigrants, his wanting immigrants to come from Norway and other affluent European nations rather than Third World “shitholes”, etc...
I don't think his tweet was directed at those congresswomen because of their "color" or race but rather his anger of the way they talk about America. Ilhan Omar is from Somalia but his tweet didn't say anything about 'country' only that they should go back to the broken "places" they come from to "fix it up and then come back and show us how it's done"
By the "places" he means either the districts they hail from or he mistook them all as foreign. Either way I don't see how them being non-white was the issue to begin with.
You're right about the "birther" nonsense though I fail to see how that relates to 'race' since the vast majority of blacks in the U.S. were born here just like whites and Obama's mother was white. Race has nothing to do with a person's place of birth and Trump even called out Ted Cruz as not being qualified for the presidency because he's a "Canadian anchor-baby". Yet Cruz is white last time I checked. Also his pathetic reason was the source of the birther conspiracy-- his then friend Hillary Clinton or rather her campaign manager Sidney Blumenthal who not only started the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya but that he was also a drug dealer, not to mention the pornographic pictures of Obama's mother leaked into the internet! Yet funny how nobody called Blumenthal or Hillary racist.
Also there was no "Muslim ban" but rather a ban on a list countries that pose a threat to national security which was first compile under the Obama administration. He also never insulted Mexican immigrants. That is a blatant misquote of a speech he gave in Arizona during his campaign which he referred specifically to illegal immigrants from Mexico and not even all of them. As for the "shithole" comment, that was something claimed by an opponent at a meeting at the oval office and is not something confirmed. Even if it was said, he didn't use "shithole" to describe all 3rd world nations but presumably messed up ones which by the way doesn't pertain to any particular race. According to the claims, his list affluent countries also included South Korea which is not a white country. Funny how despite this claim this past month his administration issued H1B work visas to India and Nigeria.
quote:The man may very well not be too invested in the white nationalist movement, but you can’t deny that he has no problem pandering to that crowd for his own self-interests. Which is pretty scummy in its own right.
I don't know if he is purposely doing that but as a politician that's what they all do-- pander to even the lowest common denominator. Which is why I never support them. I hear his supporters say he's a businessman but he's not anymore and is now another public asshole. He was a private asshole in NY now he's a public one in DC.
quote:Could you please do cite a reputable source claiming Trump has supported all those black businesses, colleges, etc.?
Dude. This was common knowledge back in the 90s. In fact just last month in Atlanta the richest black man in America Robert F. Smith who spoke at Morehouse College graduating class out of charity decided to pay off the student debt of all the members of the graduating class. Smith was a friend and business partner who Trump helped back in the day. The same with Robert L. Johnson the co-founder of BET, and Daymond John the founder of FUBU. There were also a bunch of investors here in Atlanta who got their start as stockbrokers in Wall Street thanks in part to Donald Trump. Again, I find it bizarre that despite Trump's history in civil rights which got him 2 NAACP awards he is now branded a Nazi. Yet the Clintons both had Klansmen as their mentors and aren't called racist at all by the media.
It's ironic because Black males protested against police brutality in the "greatest country on earth". These Black males have a longer history and lineage than Trump in America. Yet he called them sons of bitches, instead of listen to their plead. Trump investing in Black up-and-coming companies doesn't mean he wasn't prejudice. It was a business deal. Business deals are meant to make profit of off. We know that later in his life he became a loyal Fox News and Alex Jones follower (watcher.
Trump himself is a third- generation immigrant. His wife is a first immigration who once opperated illegally. His children are anchor babies.
Literally everything he says is a contradiction.
Here is a nice article I've found, which gives a deep look at things. And it's very much in line with "our" poster "Celtic Warrior" was is far right wing:
"Trump did not address members of the alt-right gathering for a Portland rally, but he did say he’s considering designating antifa an “organization of terror." […] President Trump issued a stark warning to antifa, the collective of militant anti-fascist leftist groups, ahead of a rally on Saturday in Portland, Oregon, where antifa activists were widely expected to confront far-right activists.
The man had a racist history, but he apologized for his racist past. And Hillary literally has a history of Social Justice in Black community. However it’s very unfortunate what happened in the ‘90s with the Joe Biden Bill.
Has Trump ever apologized for the racist things he has said and done?
And his tweet was directed at all of the “Squad” because of their racial backgrounds. Non-White immigrants is something extreme right-wing whites always had a problem with, especially those from Africa.
Ironically he doesn't speak up for Palestinians, and didn’t acknowledge that America has destroyed Somali.
The man didn’t even know the Puerto Rico is American territory, or that Miss Presley is ADOS. Both have lineage boing back before his paternal father ever set foot on American soil.
There is a long history in banning non-whites from entering America (USA). What changed this was the 1965 immigration act, but his rhetoric is not much different from what was “trumped” during the firstReconstruction and second Reconstruction.
Evidence is in the fact that trump started his political career with the “Birther-rhetoric”. He doesn't want non-white American, so therefore… this is the reality Black people deal with.
Perhaps you can explain this?
“The tax cuts that President Trump signed into law last year are disproportionately helping white Americans over African-Americans and Latinos, a disparity that reflects longstanding racial economic inequality in the United States and the choices that Republicans made in crafting the law.
The finding comes from a new analysis of the $1.5 trillion tax cut using an economic model built by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a liberal think tank, and released in a joint report with Prosperity Now, a nonprofit focused on helping low-income Americans attain wealth and financial stability. It is the first detailed analysis of the law to break down its effects by race.” ~Jim Tankersley, Oct 11, 2018, White Americans Gain the Most From Trump’s Tax Cuts, a Report Finds https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/business/trump-tax-cuts-white-americans.html
Ending Protection from Predatory Lenders
"In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis that devastated African-American wealth, Congress established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to guarantee basic standards of fairness for consumer financial products and services such as mortgages, credit cards, car loans, checking accounts, debt collection, and student loans." ~Algernon Austin, JUNE 15, 2018, Social Exclusion: Black People Have Everything to Lose Under Trump https://www.demos.org/research/social-exclusion-black-people-have-everything-lose-under-trump Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
There has always been tremendous diversity in South and Central America. The idea that the early "Africoid/Pacific Islander" types were replaced by more modern Asians is purely false. Both types have been in place since Europeans arrived.
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Clyde doesn’t run Realhistoryww, Mike111 does and I don’t think he’s American but black European
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by real expert:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
You sure seem to use it as an insult most of the time.
Whether or not you're sincere, I for one don't buy the whole African Olmec thing, or that African-Americans descend primarily from some aboriginal community separate from "Asiatic" Native Americans. However dark or Luzia-like their populations might have looked, I would characterize all the pre-Columbian Native American civilizations (Mesoamerican, Andean, Mississippian, Anasazi, etc.) as, well, Native American rather than African, African-American, European, or whatever. At some point, people gotta acknowledge that what we call civilization has had participants of all skin colors in it.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by real expert:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
Dark skin or black skin has been present in populations all over the world for thousands of years. This isn't something "made up" by Africans in America. European anthropologists and racists have known this since they began "exploring" the world. The problem is they use that as a sign of inferiority in most cases. It is that history that is the root of the problem and the basis of modern day misinformation campaigns seen on the internet from various perspectives. And this is why folks at the Max Planck institute are receiving criticism in trying to create their all encompassing models of human history.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dark skin or black skin has been present in populations all over the world for thousands of years. This isn't something "made up" by Africans in America. European anthropologists and racists have known this since they began "exploring" the world. The problem is they use that as a sign of inferiority in most cases. It is that history that is the root of the problem and the basis of modern day misinformation campaigns seen on the internet from various perspectives. And this is why folks at the Max Planck institute are receiving criticism in trying to create their all encompassing models of human history.
Recall DJ citing a paper showing that Lagoa Santa people had less "sinodont" physical characteristics than later Natives. Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Dark skin or black skin has been present in populations all over the world for thousands of years. This isn't something "made up" by Africans in America. European anthropologists and racists have known this since they began "exploring" the world. The problem is they use that as a sign of inferiority in most cases. It is that history that is the root of the problem and the basis of modern day misinformation campaigns seen on the internet from various perspectives. And this is why folks at the Max Planck institute are receiving criticism in trying to create their all encompassing models of human history.
Recall DJ citing a paper showing that Lagoa Santa people had less "sinodont" physical characteristics than later Natives. Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
I don't disagree with the idea of multiple waves hitting America and with later waves having different features. What I disagree with is the idea that those older features disappeared and that modern "native Americans" going back prior to European contact were exclusively or primarily sidont.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Nobody is saying those older features disappeared entirely, however there is no denying the fact that the sundadont populaces were largely replaced by the sinodont ones as shown by the skeletal and dental evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
Actually, recent research has come out showing that Beringia may have been an early center of EDAR gene expression.
Gene for teeth used to track ancient human populations Beringia is an area where Siberia and Alaska come together. It is now underwater. But at the last glacial maximum, about 24,000 years ago, sea level was 120 metres lower and this large wide flat open area supported plants and animals and likely a human population. Leslea Hlusko is tracking ancient populations through a gene variant which influences dentition. The EDAR gene controls the shape of incisors and a range of other traits. A new hypothesis is the Beringia region was favourable for expression of the EDAR gene, and populations selected for it. These populations then spread to the Americas and to north east Asia.
If this is true, then it means that the early sundadonts who first settled the Americas did not come from that area but likely south of that area along a coastal area.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Given that sinodonty and various other so-called "Mongoloid" physical characteristics are the product of certain EDAR genetic alleles like he's said, it could be that the Lagoa Santa people represent descendents of a population that left the Beringian standstill "ahead of schedule", i.e. before these EDAR traits reached the same degree of fixture that you see in modern Natives. So while Lagao Santa may have more genetic affinity to Native Americans than to any other world population today, their phenotype could still have looked quite different (e.g. less "Mongoloid") from modern Natives. At least that's how it has come to look to me.
Actually, recent research has come out showing that Beringia may have been an early center of EDAR gene expression.
Gene for teeth used to track ancient human populations Beringia is an area where Siberia and Alaska come together. It is now underwater. But at the last glacial maximum, about 24,000 years ago, sea level was 120 metres lower and this large wide flat open area supported plants and animals and likely a human population. Leslea Hlusko is tracking ancient populations through a gene variant which influences dentition. The EDAR gene controls the shape of incisors and a range of other traits. A new hypothesis is the Beringia region was favourable for expression of the EDAR gene, and populations selected for it. These populations then spread to the Americas and to north east Asia.
If this is true, then it means that the early sundadonts who first settled the Americas did not come from that area but likely south of that area along a coastal area.
I stand corrected. Though I do remember you mentioning the ancestors of modern Northeast Asians (as in Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, etc.) may have also come from Beringia, so maybe they have common ancestor with modern Natives there.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ As far as northeast Asians like Chinese, Koreans and Japanese having Beringian ancestry, yes this is partly true. Evidence shows back-migrations to Siberia from Beringia and ultimately northwest America, and some of these Siberians made their way into Korea and northern China.
This makes me think of the populations of North Africa and Southwest Asia who both share the same dental morphology and well as other biological affinities and ancestry. Prehistoric north Africans migrated into Southwest Asia and then later on some Southwest Asians return to Africa.
Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ As far as northeast Asians like Chinese, Koreans and Japanese having Beringian ancestry, yes this is partly true. Evidence shows back-migrations to Siberia from Beringia and ultimately northwest America, and some of these Siberians made their way into Korea and northern China.
I wonder if those back-migrants in northeast Asia ever admixed with sundadont locals. If so, would that make modern Northeast Asians a hybrid population of sorts?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ No, because sinodonty and the EDAR mutation itself originated in northeast Asia to begin with. I think you misunderstood when the source I cited says Beriginia was an early center of EDAR mutation, that doesn't make it the source. The source was still northeast Asia; however among those northeast Asians who made it to Beringia there seemed to have been instensive selection for the trait as some experts have described New Word or Amerindian peoples as "super-sinodonty". And as further proof or Beringian back-migration, some populations of Siberia and northern Asia also exhibit super-sinodonty as opposed to regular sinodonty.
Interestingly, the only part of northeast Asia that fit the scenario you described is Japan! It is modern Japanese who exhibit hybrid traits of both sundadonty and sinodonty as well as other traits. This is further proof that sinodont populations arrived relatively late to the Japanese islands.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Nobody is saying those older features disappeared entirely, however there is no denying the fact that the sundadont populaces were largely replaced by the sinodont ones as shown by the skeletal and dental evidence.
Again, no disagreement with that. What I am saying is that there has always been tremendous diversity in South and Central America and the photos and writings of the Early European colonists attest to this. And even to this day there is tremendous diversity among remote Native Populations.... It is not simply a case of being "exclusively Sinodont or Sudadont" which really just means North Asian vs South Asian.
The problem with all these European models of human diversity is they try and put people in categories and ignore the fact of tremendous variation and overlaps within and between those categories.
Major features of Sundadonty and Sinodonty, including suggestions about East Asian microevolution, population history, and late Pleistocene relationships with Australian Aboriginals
quote: The eight diagnostic morphological traits of the Sundadont and Sinodont divisions of the Mongoloid dental complex are identified. Intra‐and intergroup variation for these crown and root features is plotted. The univariate frequency distributions provide useful evidence for several suggestions about East Asian prehistory, dental microevolution, and intergroup relationships. The case for local evolution of Sundadonty is strengthened by finding Australian teeth to be very similar to this pattern. Australian Aboriginal teeth are also generally like those of Jomonese and some Ainus, suggesting that members of the late Pleistocene Sundaland population could have initially colonized Sahulland as well as the continental shelf of East Asia northward to Hokkaido.
This particular point here in this book goes back to what I have been saying for years on this forum which is that many of Native Americans and Asians descend from an aboriginal root which is most commonly seen in Australian aborigines but was once more widespread.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by real expert:
quote:Originally posted by Askia_The_Great: @real expert
Your three day vacation is up. So BEHAVE....
Thanks a lot sir for removing my ban. To be honest I didn‘t expect that I would be banned without having the opportunity to clear up the accusations thrown at me. I didn't say anything racist towards Afro-Americans nor did I insult them but dare to criticize some of them. I just wrote what I have experienced with people that happened to be Afro-Americans. So I wasn‘t targing Afro-Americans for being Afro-Americans but my post was adressed to these people that attack Native Americans and their heritage. Their main source was the afrocentric website ww realhistory, etc. that is run by Clyde Winters, who is Afro-American.
I criticize those black Americans since they say that the real Natives were modern day black Americans and not Asiatic Amerindian. They use Luzia or australian admixutre in some Natives and very old pics of deeply tanned Natives as proof for their claims. There are plenty you tube clips, websites with crazy content, almost all created by Afro-Americans where Native Americans are viciously attacked and called imposters, Mongolians with a racist undertone. Copts are also verbarly abused, called fake invaders by other black Americans. They are to told to get out of Egypt since ancient Egyptians were black and the ancestors of Afro-Americans. I haven‘t met black Brazilians, or Hatians or Africans making such claims . Since these people were black Americans I have to be specific and tell things by their name. Accussing me of targing Afro-Americans or of racism is unfair. In my humble opinion Egyptsearch should listen to both sides of the story instead to quickly ban users just because certain users want them banned. Being critical of some aspect of Afrocentrism that hurts marginalized, oppressed groups like Native Americans is not racist or anti-black at all. Besides since when is the word Afrocentric an insult?
1)When you do actual research, you’ll notice that it was WHITE scholar who started making the claims that the Olmec were people of African descend.
2) It also goes against your earlier claims (a few months ago) that whites were all over the planet and what not ridiculous claims you made.
3) These Black People who make these claims to be indigenous to the Americas base their claims on WHITE RESEARCHER SOURCES. This group is a relatively small group. Most Black Americans don’t even take it seriously. Most know and understand that they have origin in West and Central Africa.
So once again you have proven us that you aren’t an expert on anything. You thrive on prejudices, and that is why you were banned. And rightfully so, I have to add!
Lastly, was it not (some) whites who claimed to have origin everywhere. Still till this day in science we see how it is being weaponized, as you propped up your DNA-example.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Yet funny how nobody called Blumenthal or Hillary racist.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
[/IMG] 
