quote:

---

ootprints discovered in New Mexico suggest that early humans were in North America around 23,000 years ago, researchers reported recently.

The fossilized footprints were found in a dry lake in White Sands National Park in 2009. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey recently studied seeds stuck in the footprints to estimate their age. Evidence suggested they were from 21,130 to 22,800 years ago.

---

quote:

---

Is it possible that a group of humans related to Australian Aborigines somehow made its way into South America before Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait and entered the New World over 13,000 years ago? In other words, were the First Americans actually the Second Americans?

Believe it or not, that is the scenario that has emerged from several studies over the past three years … or at least, it’s one of a couple scenarios that have been suggested. Researchers have dubbed this mystery group “Population Y” after the word ypykuera, which means ancestor in a Brazilian language called Tupi.

Until the mystery of Population Y emerged, genetic studies in concert with archaeological finds have tended to point toward the conclusion that all native people in the New World descend from a common origin – that is, from Siberians who crossed the Bering Straits over 15,000 years ago (ya). North and South America are, of course, the last two continents to be populated by homo sapiens.

However, in 2015, two studies quite independently discovered that certain tribes deep in the Amazon jungle shared a genetic affinity to Australasians. (The ancestry of these tribe members remains primarily Native American; it is only a small portion of their DNA that links them to Australasians.)

---

quote:

---

At the time of the discovery in 2015, the DNA of very few ancient Native American remains had been tested. The genetic link was discovered only in current humans who agreed to be tested. The connection is not linear – that is, the Brazilian tribes in question are not directly descended from Australian Aborigines, nor are Aborigines descended from them. Instead, today’s Australasians and some members of these three Brazilian tribes today are very distant cousins who are likely descended from a common population, and it is that hypothesized common population which has been dubbed Population Y. As Pontus Skoglund who worked with Professor Reich points out, Population Y is “an unknown group that doesn’t exist anymore.” The theory is that Population Y would have existed somewhere in East Asia, time frame unclear, and then split – one group went south and one north, with the northern group eventually making its way across the Bering Strait and into the Americas.

---

quote:

---

Then, late last year, two more studies were published by the same research labs which further expanded on the possibility of an Australasian connection to these Brazilian tribes. Although the research groups are independent of one another, they published collaboratively on the same day: November 8. The results of David Reich’s Harvard team were published in the journal Cell, while the results of Eske Willerslev’s Copenhagen/Cambridge team were published in Science.

The two new studies represent the first major effort to systematically test and analyze multiple ancient human DNA samples from the Americas. The Harvard team decoded 49 ancient genomes going as far back as 12,800 ya while the Copenhagen/ Cambridge team decoded 15 ancient genomes going as far back as 10,600 ya. Previously less than 10 ancient genomes in the New World had been analyzed by anyone. A lot of interesting insights came out of the two studies, with the Australasian connection being only one small aspect of their overall findings.

Disappointingly, none of the 49 ancient samples in the Cell study revealed an Australasian genetic signature. One sample from the Science study, however did: the 10,400-year-old Lagoa Santa remains in Brazil. That would appear to be evidence that descendants of the “ghost” population known as Population Y were in South America at least 10,000 ya.

But that still doesn’t answer the question of who came first. We already know that the ancestors of today’s Native Americans left Siberia as a structured population about 23,000 ya, resided in Beringia during the Last Glacial Maximum for about 8,000 years, and then began to enter North America after 15,000 ya when the melting of ice sheets permitted. There is also evidence of an ancient split within the original Native American population that occurred about 13,000 ya, with one group heading east across Canada (called ANC-B), and another that headed south, populating the rest of the New World (ANC-A). So a group carrying the Population Y signature either was already in South America when Native Americans arrived or they entered afterward. If it was afterward, they somehow traveled through North America without leaving any genetic trace.

To me, imagining that Population Y came after Native Americans seems like quite a stretch. I don’t know how a separate population travels all the way from Asia through North America to the Amazon jungle without leaving some trace of their existence along the way. (Arriving in South America across the oceans 10 or 20 thousand years ago seems even more fantastic.) It makes much more sense that the Population Y group is more ancient than the Paleoamericans who arrived 15,000 ya. They could have easily been more widespread and were displaced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

quote:

---

Jonnes Genealogy

The Mystery of Population Y


Disappointingly, none of the 49 ancient samples in the Cell study revealed an Australasian genetic signature.
One sample
from the Science study,
however did: the 10,400-year-old Lagoa Santa remains in Brazil. That would appear to be evidence that descendants of the “ghost” population known as Population Y were in South America at least 10,000 ya.

---

---

https://www.science.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/science.aab3884

SCIENCE 2015

Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans
MAANASA RAGHAVAN

CONCLUSION
Our results provide an upper bound of ~23 ka on the initial divergence of ancestral Native Americans from their East Asian ancestors, followed by a short isolation period of no more than ~8000 years, and subsequent entrance and spread across the Americas. The data presented are consistent with a single-migration model for all Native Americans, with later gene flow from sources related to East Asians and, indirectly, Australo-Melanesians. The single wave diversified ~13 ka, likely within the Americas, giving rise to the northern and southern branches of present-day Native Americans.

Fig. 1 Origins and population history of Native Americans.
Additionally, we see a weak signal related to Australo-Melanesians in some Native Americans, which may have been mediated through East Asians and Aleutian Islanders

We found that some American populations—including the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans—are closer to Australo-Melanesians as compared with other Native Americans, such as North American Ojibwa, Cree, and Algonquin and the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco, and Wayuu (fig. S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such as Aeta (fig. S10). We acknowledge that this observation is based on the analysis of a small fraction of the whole-genome and SNP chip genotype data sets—especially for the Aleutian Islander data, which is heavily masked owing to recent admixture with Europeans (28)—and that the trends in the data are weak.
Nonetheless, if it proves correct, these results suggest that there may be a distant Old World signal related to Australo-Melanesians and East Asians in some Native Americans. The widely scattered and differential affinity of Native Americans to the Australo-Melanesians, ranging from a strong signal in the Surui to a much weaker signal in northern Amerindians such as Ojibwa, points to this gene flow occurring after the initial peopling by Native American ancestors.
However, how this signal may have ultimately reached South America remains unclear. One possible means is along a northern route via the Aleutian Islanders, previously found to be closely related to the Inuit (39), who have a relatively greater affinity to East Asians, Oceanians, and Denisovan than Native Americans in both whole-genome and SNP chip genotype data–based D tests (table S10 and figs. S10 and S11). On the basis of archaeological evidence and mtDNA data from ancient and modern samples, the Aleutian Islands are hypothesized to have been peopled as early as ~9 ka by “Paleo-Aleuts” who were succeeded by the “Neo-Aleuts,” with present-day Aleutian Islanders potentially resulting from admixture between these two populations (52, 53). Perhaps their complex genetic history included input from a population related to Australo-Melanesians through an East Asian continental route, and this genomic signal might have been subsequently transferred to parts of the Americas, including South America, through past gene flow events (Fig. 1). Evidence for this gene flow is supported with diCal2.0 and MSMC analyses showing a weak but recent gene flow into South Americans from populations related to present-day Northeast Asians (Koryak) (Fig. 2C and table S11C), who might be considered a proxy for the related Aleutian Islanders.

The results of analyses based on craniometric data thus are highly sensitive to sample structure and the statistical approach and data filtering used (51). Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration as claimed and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The genomic data is clear that these Paleo-Indians are not related to Australo-Melanesians directly but indirectly as some Paleo-Americans and some Australo-Melanesians share admixture from the same Population Y.

This was addressed before in other threads like here and here.

Population Y genomics aside, we also have non-metric odontological data showing that modern Amerindians predominantly have not only sinodonty but super-sinodonty as shown by the 2016 Richard Scott et al. paper, yet in certain parts of South and Central America there are traces of sundadonty which was more prevalent in paleolithic times as shown in the 2009 Richard Sutter paper.

And earlier this year a paper came out by James Chatter et al. about Naia's dental morphology vs. other Paleo-indians.

ABSTRACT
The dental morphology of the earliest Americans is poorly known, partly because existing data are
largely unpublished and partly because dental wear is typically extreme in the few complete
dentitions available. The remains of Naia, a 13,000–12,000 year-old young woman from
Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, possess a complete dental record in perfect condition, offering the
unique opportunity to record the dental morphology of an early Paleoindian and a chance to
address the long-standing debate about whether these first people exhibited Sundadont or
Sinodont dental morphology. As an individual, her dentition would fit comfortably in the
Sinodont grouping. However, when she is included in the population of North American
skeletal remains that can be confidently placed before ∼9000 years ago, a different pattern
emerges. The Paleoindians fall neatly between the two dental patterns, suggesting that the
founding North American population exhibits a dental pattern of its own, independent of its
east Asian relatives.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Dental Morphology of Naia, a Late Pleistocene
Human from Mexico and the Sinodont/Sundadont
Issue
Andrea Cucina. 2021


5. Conclusions

Naia, a late Pleistocene individual (12-13Kya) from the Yucatan
Peninsula of Mexico, exhibits a near complete dental
arcade in a perfect state of preservation, providing the
first detailed view of the dental morphology of one of
the first Americans. As an individual, her morphology firmly fits Turner’s Sinodont pattern.

Therefore, although at the individual scale there is no
doubt that Naia manifests a dental morphology that falls
within the Sinodont pattern,
when we look at her as one
member of the late Pleistocene and early Holocene
population in North America, a different picture
emerges. In fact, within the limits imposed by missing
information and by the still very limited sample size,
Paleoindian individuals show strong tendencies toward
a variety of dental patterns. Among the most ancient
remains with a relatively large number of scored traits,
Pelican Rapids,(8kya) who is at least four millennia younger
than Naia and Naharon 1 (assuming the age of the latter
is close to accurate),
seems to better match the Sundadont pattern, while the others seem to fall in the Native
America, American Arctic and Northeast Asia cluster.
In this perspective, and contrary to
the craniometric evidence that suggests biogeographic affinities
with Australo-Melanesians (Hubbe, Harvati, and Neves 2011),
the individuals that we have been able to analyze for
their biogeographic origin based on dental morphology
(per Scott, Turner, et al. 2018) provide opposite results.
For a true Sundadont first/Sinodont
late migratory pattern into the American continent we should have
expected to see the oldest
individuals in the group present combinations of traits clearly
leaning toward Sundadonty. We do not see such a pattern.

While Naia
falls well within the Amerindian populations, and
Warm Mineral Springs falls into the North and South
American group (and to some extent also into East
Asia), Pelican Rapids falls into the Australo-Melanesia
and Micronesia group, and the others into the American
Arctic and Northern Asian group. These results are not
as disparate as they may appear, given that recent Native
Americans cluster with East Asia and with American
Arctic and Northeast Asia. The placement of the Pelican
Rapids individual with the Australo-Melanesia group
simply indicates that within a population’s range of
variability, there will always be single individuals who fall well outside the norm

____________________________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Woman

Minnesota Woman, also known as Pelican Rapids-Minnesota Woman (c. 5947–5931 BC),


is the skeletal remains of a woman thought to be 8,000 years old. The bones were found near Pelican Rapids, Minnesota on June 16, 1931, during construction on U.S. Route 59. The bones were brought to Albert Jenks at the University of Minnesota, who identified them as the bones of a woman who was 15 or 16 years old, but who had never borne children. The woman had two artifacts—a dagger made from an elk's horn and a conch shell pendant. The conch shell came from a whelk species known as Sinistrofulgur perversum, which had previously only been known to exist in Florida.

the peopling
scenarios posed by Scott, Schmitz et al. (2018), Paleoindian dentition fits the Beringian Standstill model most
closely.

Beringian Standstill, in which Native
Americans are distinct from all Asian populations but
are relatively uniform through time within the Americas


.


.
_________________________

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265013613_Geographic_patterns_of_Early_Holocene_New_World_dental_morphological_variation

Geographic patterns of Early Holocene New World dental morphological variation
July 2013 Dental Anthropology Journal


Stojanowski, Johnson, and Duncan
416a large sample of Middle Holocene Eastern Woodlands populations dating from ~8500 to 5000 BP in a series of multivariate statistical analyses. Using Turner’s published trait frequencies as the training sample, discriminant function analysis allocated most Archaic period populations into the Sundadont category (Powell 1995). This was not a unique finding. Lahr and Haydenblit(1995) identified a Sundadont pattern based on four traits in a population from Tierra del Fuego (see also Lahr 1995), Haydenblit (1996) documented Sundadonty in a series of recent (1300 BC–AD 750) central Mexican sam-ples using 29 dental traits, and Sutter (2005b, 2009b) observed that a number of Andean samples (Paleoindian, Preceramic, and Southern Cone Chilean)did not demonstrate a Sinodont pattern. Sutter’s work (1997, 2000, 2005b,2009b) is interesting because it ties Sinodonty in more recent Andean populations to biocultural evolutionary effects associated with emergent agricul-ture. He explains a north-to-south cline for the pattern and temporal trends for an increasingly Sinodont dentition as the result of demic diffusion from Mesoamerica, thus establishing the complex as a functional whole subject toselection mechanisms. Powell (1997, 2005; Powell and Neves 1998) fine tuned his dissertation ana-lyses and included a small sample of Paleoindian dentitions in his database. Multidimensional scaling of trait frequencies confirmed that early New World populations (Paleoindians from South America, North American Archaic populations) were not Sinodont. However, the use of less restrictive statistics(those that do not force an allocation into predetermined categories) also indicated that early Americans were not Sundadont, but rather formed their own distinct cluster. This patterning was demonstrated by Powell
Given the time spans included, such divergence should come as no surprise. Interestingly, the Archaic samples were not only divergent from modern Native American and Old World Sinodont and Sundadont samples but also from New World Paleoindians, particularly those from South America.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Yes, Lioness thank you for quoting the sources I already provided the links to. Notwithstanding individual outliers, the problem is that most American paleo-archaeological finds are associated with post-Clovis cultures and all these remains predominantly show super-sinodonty and not simply sinodonty which is consistent with the Beringian Stand-Still Hypothesis and is in stark contrast to sundadonty. Very few are associated with pre-Clovis cultures and Brandon simply cites pre-Clovis evidence of footprints with no human remains. Most evidence of Sundadonty comes from South America Sutter's 2009 paper shows:

Although many of these scholars have implied that the second migratory event constituted replacement of the preexisting proto-Mongoloid populations, Joseph Powell and Walter Neves (1999) correctly point out that many of the detected patterns may be due to the initial population structure of the colonists. Using the same traits and protocol adopted by Turner, I have previously argued (Sutter 1997, 2005) that the geographic and temporal trends for dental trait data among twelve prehistoric south-central Andean mortuary populations indicate there were at least two peopling events for the region: an early migration, represented by the Paleoindians and their descendants, followed by a more recent demographic expansion of food-producing populations. Based on a limited number of samples and currently available osteological and dental data from North and Central America, I suggested that the more recent demographic expansion initially had its source among prehistoric food-producing Central Americans, who then expanded south into South America and mixed with the preexisting foraging populations. For this study, I report on epigenetic tooth cusp and root traits for forty-four prehistoric Andean mortuary samples. These data are examined in order to under-stand the factors responsible for the observed dental trait variability and to place these samples in a broader evolutionary context.

This could only mean that the Americas were settled in more than one wave and that Beringia could not be the only source.

What's interesting is that a more recent wave of sundadonts entered the Americas as shown by not only Minnesota Woman (c. 5947–5931 BC) but also Kennwick Man (c. 7,000-6,900 BC)



Powell said that dental analysis showed the skull to have a 94-percent consistency with being of a Sundadont group like the Ainu and Polynesians and only a 48-percent consistency with being of a Sinodont group like that of North Asia.[24][page needed] Powell said analysis of the skull showed it to be "unlike American Indians and Europeans".[24][page needed] Powell concluded that the remains were "clearly not a Caucasoid unless Ainu and Polynesians are considered Caucasoid"
 

---

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

Turner found the Sundadont pattern in the skeletal remains of Jōmon people of Japan, and in living populations of Taiwanese aborigines, Filipinos, Indonesians, Borneans, and Malaysians.

In 1996, Rebecca Haydenblit of the Hominid Evolutionary Biology Research Group at Cambridge University did a study on the dentition of four pre-Columbian Mesoamerican populations and compared their data to other Eastern Eurasian populations. She found that "Tlatilco", "Cuicuilco", "Monte Albán" and "Cholula" populations followed an overall "Sundadont" dental pattern "characteristic of Southeast Asia" rather than a "Sinodont" dental pattern "characteristic of Northeast Asia"

___________________________________

How common is the the Sundadont pattern in modern populations of the Americas?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ It's not common at all, that's the thing! Amerindian peoples are predominantly sinodonty and actually super-sinodonty which is why bio-anthropologists are puzzled by the presence of sundadonty. But getting back to the main point of Brandon's thread, Population Y genetics are also exceptionally rare with traces of it being found among certain Amazon tribes like the Suruí and Aleutian Islanders. Back in Eurasia, Population Y is found in Oceanian populations like some Andamanese and some Papuans and northern Australian Aborigines with the source being somewhere in East Asia before splitting into a northern branch that made its way to the Americas and a southern branch that went into Oceania.

The Mystery of Population Y

If you add this with the sundadonty and possible Australasian features and you get the high likelihood that the Americas was populated in multiple waves other than the main Beringian Stand-Still population who display super-sinodonty.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ It's not common at all, that's the thing! Amerindian peoples are predominantly sinodonty and especially super-sinodonty which is why bio-anthropologists are puzzled by the presence of sundadonty. But getting back to the main point of Brandon's thread, Population Y genetics are also exceptionally rare with traces of it being found among certain Amazon tribes like the Suruí and Aleutian Islanders.

The Mystery of Population Y

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

traces of it being found among certain Amazon tribes like the Suruí and Aleutian Islanders.

---

To my knowledge there are no aDNA examples of this
Can you identify one?
I may have overlooked it. In one of the articles mentioned in that blog do they have ancient DNA skeletal remains with Austro-Melanesian DNA?
Can you point to a particular sample ?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Lioness, are you feigning amnesia or do you really have memory problems? Population Y was addressed several times before including here, here and here. In fact in the first link it was YOU who cited the paper from Nature that first discovered Population Y!

The findings from then on make it clear that Population Y was NOT Australo-Melanesian but a population that originated in East Asia that split into a northern branch and southern branch with the latter mixing with Australo-Melanesians while the former mixed with the ancestors of some Amerindians. Why are you playing dumb?
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Lioness, are you feigning amnesia or do you really have memory problems? Population Y was addressed several times before including here, here and here. In fact in the first link it was YOU who cited the paper from Nature that first discovered Population Y!

The findings from then on make it clear that Population Y was NOT Australo-Melanesian but a population that originated in East Asia that split into a northern branch and southern branch with the latter mixing with Australo-Melanesians while the former mixed with the ancestors of some Amerindians. Why are you playing dumb?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

Again, beyond theorizing

---

quote:

---

are there ancient skeletal remains in the Americas with an Austro-Melanesian haplogroup?

---

quote:

---

I was looking over a couple of articles and couldn't find it but maybe I overlooked it, that would be hard evidence

One paper was talking about maternal B and ancient remains but it turns out the B was from 19th c remains and older samples had the North DNA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
are there ancient skeletal remains in the Americas with an Austro-Melanesian haplogroup?

---

Again Population Y is NOT Austro-Melanesian but rather an ancestral group to some Austro-Melanesians as well as some Amerindians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

^ No not yet. The hypothesized homeland of Population Y is somewhere in East Asia likely China, though I am betting Taiwan may have some.

Population Y may very well represent proto-East Asians before the ancestors of other east Asians arrived.

The ancestors of Amerindians were more or less two-thirds East Asian and one-third Ancient North Eurasian, the latter was the source of paternal clades Q-M242 and R1-M73.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

The Mystery of Population Y

quote:

---

Is it possible that a group of humans related to Australian Aborigines somehow made its way into South America before Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait and entered the New World over 13,000 years ago? In other words, were the First Americans actually the Second Americans?

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[QB] ^ You need to improve your reading comprehension. Brandon's source correctly points out that Population Y were NOT Australian Aborigines but a people related to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Lioness, seriously are you playing dumb or did you not read the article?!

From the article:

However, in 2015, two studies quite independently discovered that certain tribes deep in the Amazon jungle shared a genetic affinity to Australasians. (The ancestry of these tribe members remains primarily Native American; it is only a small portion of their DNA that links them to Australasians.)

Australasians is the term used to describe Aborigines, Papua New Guineans, Andaman Islanders, Mamanwa Negritos, and other groups in the Philippines. The Andaman Islands were recently in the news because an American missionary, John Chau, was killed when he attempted to make illegal contact with natives on North Sentinel Island in November 2018.

^ You can clearly see they are referring to Australasians in general and NOT Australian Aborigines only.

---

quote:

---

https://www.jonnesgenealogy.com/the-mystery-of-population-y/

The Mystery of Population Y

At the time of the discovery in 2015, the DNA of very few ancient Native American remains had been tested. The genetic link was discovered only in current humans who agreed to be tested...


The Harvard team decoded 49 ancient genomes going as far back as 12,800 ya while the Copenhagen/ Cambridge team decoded 15 ancient genomes going as far back as 10,600 ya. Previously less than 10 ancient genomes in the New World had been analyzed by anyone. A lot of interesting insights came out of the two studies, with the Australasian connection being only one small aspect of their overall findings.

Disappointingly, none of the 49 ancient samples in the Cell study revealed an Australasian genetic signature. One sample from the Science study, however did: the 10,400-year-old Lagoa Santa remains in Brazil. That would appear to be evidence that descendants of the “ghost” population known as Population Y were in South America at least 10,000 ya.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
The hypothesized homeland of Population Y is somewhere in East Asia likely China, though I am betting Taiwan may have some.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:


Interestingly paternal C-M217 is derived from C-M130 which is common in Australian and Oceanian Aborigines,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Again, why can't your brain accept the simple fact that Population Y is NOT Australo-Melanesian!! The connection that some Amerindians have to some Australo-Melanesians is that they have admixture from Population Y.

And Y-hg C is not the only connection to Australo-Melanesians, there is also mtDNA hg B4 (formerly B2) which is common to South American Indigenes.

Here is one study.

---

I have already looked at that study and if you look at the details this is not enough to prove a Population Y and in the article they discuss different scenarios, including modern (I didn't' copy that part) and conclude

"We have entertained several possible models to try to explain how these Polynesian sequences were found in individuals from an Amerindian population living in a region in the interior of Brazil. At present, our results do not allow us to accept or definitely reject any of these scenarios"

________________

Identification of Polynesian mtDNA haplogroups in remains of Botocudo Amerindians from Brazil
Vanessa Faria Gonçalves, 2013

We sequenced the control region (first and second hypervariable segments: HVSI-HVSII) and typed specific mutations of the coding region of mtDNA extracted from teeth of 14 different Botocudo skulls. As reported previously (30), 12 of these skulls clearly belonged to the Amerindian haplogroup C1 and will not be further discussed here.

The extracts from the remaining two skulls, MN00015 and MN00017, yielded mitochondrial sequences belonging to haplogroup B, with unexpected ancestries. Their description and analysis constitute the core of the present article.

Phylogenetic Analysis of Polynesian Sequences Found in Brazil.
The skulls identified as MN00015 and MN00017 in the Museu Nacional/UFRJ in Rio de Janeiro were both from adult male Botocudo individuals from the Rio Doce valley in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil, as registered by annotations written directly on the outer aspect of their respective parietal bones. According to information of the log book of the museum, it is most likely that these crania arrived there on August 25, 1890. The date of death is not known with certainty, but it is almost certainly the second half of the 19th century.

This set of mutations classified the haplotype as B4a1a, found mainly in Taiwan, Island Southeast Asia and populations on the Pacific Islands (32, 33). Further analysis identified the mutation 14022G, which classified the sample in haplogroup B4a1a1 (32–34). The presence of the mutation 16247G (HVSI) and 6905A (ancestral allele), further characterized the sequence as belonging to haplogroup B4a1a1a (32–34). This haplogroup is found at high frequency in Polynesia, Micronesia, parts of Near Oceania, and Easter Island (33–36).
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Lioness, I am starting to believe that you have some sort of mental deficiency.

The purpose of the paper I cited above is to distinguish the variety of B4 found in the Botocudo remains from other Amerindians with the former showing specificities to Polynesians. This does not change the fact that B4 ties Amerindians not only to East Asians but also to Australasians.

I suggest you read the wiki entry on mtDNA haplogroup B:

Origin

Haplogroup B is believed to have arisen in Asia some 50,000 years before present. Its ancestral haplogroup was haplogroup R.

The greatest variety of haplogroup B is in China. It is therefore likely that it underwent its earliest diversification in mainland East or South East Asia

Distribution

Basal B was found in Upper Paleolithic Tianyuan man.

Haplogroup B is now most common among populations native to Southeast Asia, as well as speakers of Sino-Tibetan languages and Austronesian languages.

A subclade of B4b (which is sometimes labeled B2) is one of five haplogroups found among the indigenous peoples of the Americas, the others being A, C, D, and X.

Because the migration to the Americas by the ancestors of indigenous Americans is generally believed to have been from northeastern Siberia via Beringia, it is surprising that Haplogroup B and Haplogroup X have not been found in Paleo-Siberian tribes of northeastern Siberia. However, Haplogroup B has been found among Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic populations of Siberia, such as Tuvans, Altays, Shors, Khakassians, Yakuts, Buryats, Mongols, Negidals, and Evenks. This haplogroup is also found among populations in China, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Laos, Madagascar, Malaysia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Mongolia, the Philippines, Polynesia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Although haplogroup B in general has been found in many Siberian population samples, the subclade that is phylogenetically closest to American B2, namely B4b1, has been found mainly in populations of southern China and Southeast Asia, especially Filipinos and Austronesian speakers of eastern Indonesia (approx. 8%) and the aborigines of Taiwan and Hainan (approx. 7%). However, B4b1 has been observed in populations as far north as Turochak and Choya districts in the north of Altai Republic (3/72 = 4.2% Tubalar), Miyazaki and Tokyo, Japan (approx. 3%), South Korea (4/185 = 2.2%), Tuva (1/95 = 1.1% Tuvan), and Hulunbuir (1/149 = 0.7% Barghut).

If you go down to the 'tree' section of the article you will see a good number of B4 subtypes found in Australasians primarily Papuans and Melanesians debunking your claim of no genetic ties to these peoples.

I can lead a donkey to water but I can't make it drink.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Since lioness in her latest post seems to be writing off the "Australasian"/Pop Y signal in Native South Americans as the result of recent Polynesian admixture, one of the studies cited in my OP article actually rules that scenario out.

quote:

---

The geographic distribution of the shared genetic signal between South Americans and Australasians cannot be explained by post-Columbian African, European or Polynesian gene flow into Native American populations. If such gene flow produced signals strong enough to affect our statistics, our statistics would show their strongest deviations from zero for African, European or Polynesian populations, which is not observed. For example, a direct test is significant in showing that the Surui-specific ancestry component is genetically closer to the Andamanese Onge than to Tongans from Polynesia.

---

 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
As an aside, I've noticed that, in the past few years, some African-Americans online have been claiming they descend not from slaves brought in from West and Central Africa but from a Black "Aboriginal American" population which presumably settled the Americas before the forerunners of modern Natives.




Obviously, this claim would be contradicted by all the genetic research on African-Americans out there, but I wonder if the concept of an "Aboriginal American" population has its roots in the Paleoamerican/Population Y hypothesis?

By the way, I do think it is possible that Population Y people could have looked "Black" in phenotype, even if they didn't come straight from Australasia. But we won't know for sure without finding physical remains or aDNA that definitively belongs to them.
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Why would it be a lie? What's the sample size and from what part of the U.S did these studies choose from to make a definitive statement?

Look at Brazil,their African population is supposedly 100/200 million people but the "official " number is 10 million people,to put that in perspective there are more Black people in the U.S.than Brazil. Which makes no sense as the Brazil got the largest chunk of the enslaved Africans than what would be the U.S. which was like 3 million for Brazil and less than 500,000 for the U.S.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
FFS, don't tell me there are people here on ES who seriously entertain the "Black Americans are all Aboriginal Americans" narrative!

Meanwhile, in reality, geneticists have even been able to deduce where in Africa most African-American ancestry comes from. Not exactly consistent with a Population Y origin for most Black Americans today.

Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture in West Africans and African Americans

quote:

---

Finally, patterns of genetic similarity among inferred African segments of African-American genomes and genomes of contemporary African populations included in this study suggest African ancestry is most similar to non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian-speaking populations, consistent with historical documents of the African Diaspora and trans-Atlantic slave trade.

---

quote:

---

Preliminary results from the 2010 census, released on Wednesday, show that 97 million Brazilians, or 50.7% of the population, now define themselves as black or mixed race, compared with 91 million or 47.7% who label themselves white.

The proportion of Brazilians declaring themselves white was down from 53.7% in 2000, when Brazil's last census was held.

But the proportion of people declaring themselves black or mixed race has risen from 44.7% to 50.7%, making African-Brazilians the official majority for the first time.

"Among the hypotheses to explain this trend, one could highlight the valorisation of identity among Afro-descendants," Brazil's census board, the IBGE, said in its report.

According to the census, 7.6% of Brazilians said they were black, compared with 6.2% in 2000, and 43.1% said they were mixed race, up from 38.5%.

---

quote:

---

Another important difference was the extent of miscegenation or race mixture, resulting largely from a high sex ratio among its colonial settlers. In contrast to a family-based colonization in North America, Brazil's Portuguese settlers were primarily male. As a result, they often sought out African, indigenous and mulatto females as mates, and thus miscegenation or race mixture was common. Today, Brazilians often pride themselves on their history of miscegenation and continue to have rates of intermarriage that are far greater than those of the United States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Lioness, I am starting to believe that you have some sort of mental deficiency.


I can lead a donkey to water but I can't make it drink.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:


Look at Brazil, their African population is supposedly 100/200 million people but the "official " number is 10 million people

---

The total population of Brazil is 64% the size of the total population of the United States.

Brazil, total population, 214,551,212

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/brazil-population/

____________________________________

As usual you never have sources, no links.
Where is a link for the official number of people of African descent being 10 million people?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I think survival rate and lumping coloureds as negro
could be why USA records more Blacks than Brazil does blacks.

At one time black there meant salt water African
with no known European or American anceestors.

Will repost old Brazil casta chart of pure and admixed when found.

They had this concept of marrying up to become
white European by so many future generations of
more and more mixed white individuals marrying
mates more white than than themselves.


I'm sorry could only find this Mexico example that shows marrying up




A seires of casta paintings

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005298#000004
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Interesting? But that doesn't really explained why Brazil has less Afro Brazilians when they started with more enslaved Africans than the U.S. My only guess is their true population numbers are being distorted. If true,the Indigenous Brazilians are like 1% of the total population and if there were more Euro Brazilians from the start why the high mixed race population if the Afro Brazilians where somehow being stopped from population growth and the Indigenous Brazilians aren't big enough to maintain a mixed race group?




From a site called worldpopulationreview.

Brazil’s census addresses ethnicity and race by categorizing people mainly by skin color. It asks people to place themselves into one of a number of categories, some of which would seem unusual to an American or European. As well as ‘indigenous’ (the smallest category), Brazilians are asked to report whether they believe they are white, black, brown or yellow.

The results of the census indicated that 92 million (48%) Brazilians were white, 83 million (44%) were brown, 13 million (7%) were black, 1.1 million (0.50%) were yellow and 536,000 (0.25%) were indigenous. This method of classifying race is controversial within Brazil, and IBGE has been criticized for continuing to use it.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
Interesting? But that doesn't really explained why Brazil has less Afro Brazilians when they started with more enslaved Africans than the U.S. My only guess is their true population numbers are being distorted. If true,the Indigenous Brazilians are like 1% of the total population and if there were more Euro Brazilians from the start why the high mixed race population if the Afro Brazilians where somehow being stopped from population growth and the Indigenous Brazilians aren't big enough to maintain a mixed race group?




From a site called worldpopulationreview.

Brazil’s census addresses ethnicity and race by categorizing people mainly by skin color. It asks people to place themselves into one of a number of categories, some of which would seem unusual to an American or European. As well as ‘indigenous’ (the smallest category), Brazilians are asked to report whether they believe they are white, black, brown or yellow.

The results of the census indicated that 92 million (48%) Brazilians were white, 83 million (44%) were brown, 13 million (7%) were black, 1.1 million (0.50%) were yellow and 536,000 (0.25%) were indigenous. This method of classifying race is controversial within Brazil, and IBGE has been criticized for continuing to use it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:


Look at Brazil, their African population is supposedly 100/200 million people but the "official " number is 10 million people

---

quote:

---

92 million (48%) Brazilians were white,
83 million (44%) were brown,
13 million (7%) were black,

1.1 million (0.50%) were yellow
and 536,000 (0.25%) were indigenous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

you add insults to your posts to try to lure me into like reactions -a lot of people have noticed you do do this.

---

quote:

---

all it means is that some of my arguments have weight
otherwise you wouldn't resort to that

and it degrades the forum

---

quote:

---

I'm making an academic argument like one might do at a university and you are trying to insert insults about donkeys at the level of a junior high school student on lunch break. It's stupid

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

FFS, don't tell me there are people here on ES who seriously entertain the "Black Americans are all Aboriginal Americans" narrative!

Meanwhile, in reality, geneticists have even been able to deduce where in Africa most African-American ancestry comes from. Not exactly consistent with a Population Y origin for most Black Americans today.

Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture in West Africans and African Americans

quote:

---

Finally, patterns of genetic similarity among inferred African segments of African-American genomes and genomes of contemporary African populations included in this study suggest African ancestry is most similar to non-Bantu Niger-Kordofanian-speaking populations, consistent with historical documents of the African Diaspora and trans-Atlantic slave trade.

---

Useful image from the study to illustrate the point

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
As an aside, I've noticed that, in the past few years, some African-Americans online have been claiming they descend not from slaves brought in from West and Central Africa but from a Black "Aboriginal American" population which presumably settled the Americas before the forerunners of modern Natives.




Obviously, this claim would be contradicted by all the genetic research on African-Americans out there, but I wonder if the concept of an "Aboriginal American" population has its roots in the Paleoamerican/Population Y hypothesis?

By the way, I do think it is possible that Population Y people could have looked "Black" in phenotype, even if they didn't come straight from Australasia. But we won't know for sure without finding physical remains or aDNA that definitively belongs to them.

---

quote:

---

In the early nineteenth century, the term "Filipino" was not generally used to denote the entire population of the Philippine Archipelago. When the Spanish explorers first arrived, the natives were collectively called Indios in the mistaken notion that the archipelago was part of India, But the term Indio stayed and was used to define the bottom rung of Philippine society.

---

quote:

---

The rule of the Spaniard has indeed been imperfect enough; but America should approach the question of reform with becoming modesty, seeing that her own record in dealing with the Indians has been stained by many a crime against human rights. They have been robbed of the country which once was their own, and driven back from reservation to reservation, while even the rights guaranteed to them by Government as compensation for what they lost have been often filched from them by unscrupulous officials. The light recently thrown on the case of the Pillager Indians has disclosed cruelty, open robbery, and a disregard of solemn obligations. In the Philippines the Americans will find the natives still in possession of their country; [96]a people, once wild and nomadic like the Indians, brought into settled habits of life by three centuries of missionary effort; a people, in fine, who, whatever is said to the contrary by noisy declaimers and demagogues, have been on the whole well pleased with their lot.

---

quote:

---

MESTIZAJE.

The concept of mestizaje expresses the tensions, contradictions, and ambiguities of its birth in the New World. More important, it is a concept that continues to have spiritual and aesthetic dimensions. Mestizaje refers to racial and/or cultural mixing of Amerindians with Europeans, but the literal connotation of the word does not illuminate its theoretical applications and its more recent transformations. Since its inception in the New World and during those moments when race was a significant factor in social standing, mestizaje has been invoked to remedy social inequality and the misfiring of democracy.
Origins

In 1925 José Vasconcelos, the Mexican philosopher and educator, wrote La raza cósmica both to challenge Western theories of racial superiority and purity and to offer a new view about the mixing of African, European, and indigenous peoples in Mexico and throughout Latin America. The essay was an effort to undercut the maligned position of indigenous people and their material domination since the conquest, but it was unable to break completely from the civilizing motives of New Spain. Mestizaje was the political ideology of modern national identity, unity, and social progress. Yet Vasconcelos's vision pointed to Iberian culture, particularly Christianity, as the source for modernization and progress. Mexican nationalism has continued to construct its citizens as mestizos.

---

• Balter, M . (2015). Ancient DNA Links Native Americans With Europe . Science 25 October 2013: 342 (6157), 409-410. [DOI:10.1126/science.342.6157.409] Retrieved 3/20/2015 at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/409.full
  Berniell-Lee, G., Calafell, F., Bosch ,E. ,Heyer, E, Sica, L., Mouguiama-Daouda,| P., van der Veen, L., Hombert, J-M., Quintana-Murci , L.and, Comas, D. (2009) Genetic and Demographic Implications of the Bantu Expansion: Insights from Human Paternal Lineages, Molec Bio and Evol. 26(7),1581-1589; doi:10.1093/molbev/msp069
  Brooke Persons, Genetic Analysis and the Peopling of the New World ANT 570, November 9, 2004. http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:2g9_ETY1V38J:www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/Persons.pdf+haplotype+X&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us
  Chatters, J., Neves, W. A. and Blum, M. 1999. The Kenewick Man: a first multivariate analysis.Current Research in the Pleistocene, 16: 87–90.
  Chatters,J C, et al. (2014). Late Pleistocene human skeleton and mtDNA link Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans. Science344, 750–754 . http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6224/835.1.full
  Chen YS, Olckers A, Schurr TG, Kogelnik AM, Huroponen K, Wallace DC. (2000). mtDNA variation in the South African Kung and Khwe—and Their genetic relationships to other African populations. Am J Hum Genet, 66(4): 1362-1383.
  Coon, C. S. 1962. The Origin of Races. New York: Knopf.
  Dixon, E. J. 2001. Human colonization of the Americas: timing, chronology and process. Quaternary Science Review, 20: 277–99.
  Estes, R. (2015) .Anzick Matching Update http://dna-explained.com/2015/01/05/anzick-matching-update/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=7086&relatedposts_position=1
  Fucharoen G, Fucharoen S, Horai S.(2001). Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in Thailand. J Hum Genet , 46:115-125.
  Gonder MK, Mortensen HM, Reed FA, de Sousa A, Tishkoff SA.(2006).: Whole mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages. Mol Biol Evol., Dec 28.
  Gonzalez, et al (2012) The genetic landscape of Equatorial Guinea and the origin and migration routes of the Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88. European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 15 August 2012; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2012.167
  Henn BM, Gignoux CR, Jobin M, Granka JM, Macpherson JM, Kidd JM, Rodríguez-Botigué L, Ramachandran S, Hon L, Brisbin A, Lin AA, Underhill PA, Comas D, Kidd KK, Norman PJ, Parham P, Bustamante CD, Mountain JL, Feldman MW.(2011). Hunter-gatherer genomic diversity suggests a southern African origin for modern humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A. 2011 Mar 29;108(13):5154-62. Epub 2011 Mar 7. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5154.full
  Coon CS (1962). The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf).
  Dixon EJ (2001). Human colonization of the Americas: timing, chronology and process. Quaternary Science Review 20 277–99.
  Gonza´lez-Jose´ R, Hernande´z M, Neves WA, Pucciarelli HM and Correal G (2002). Cra´neos del Pleistoceno tardio-Holoceno tempramo de Me´xico en relacio´n al patro´n morfolo´gico paleoamericano. Paper presented at the 7th Congress of the Latin American Association of Biological Anthropology, Mexico City.
  Howells WW (1973). Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Human Populations, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University) 67.
  Howells WW (1989). Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University) 79. Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Cerca Grande 497
  Howells WW (1995). Who’s Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurments, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University) 82.
  Holden,C. (1999). Were Spaniards among the first Americans? Science 286:1467-1468.
  Howells, W. W. 1973. Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 67. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  Howells, W. W. 1989. Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of ModernHomo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,79. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
  Immanuel, F. (2014a). Clovis-Anzick-1 ancient DNA have matches with living people!. Retrieved 3/20/2015, at http://www.fi.id.au/2014/09/clovis-anzick-1-dna-match-living-people.html
  Immanuel, F. . (2014b). Ust'-Ishim Ancient DNA has matches with living people! Retrieved 3/20/2015, at http://www.fi.id.au/2014/11/ust-ishim-ancient-dna-has-matches-with.html
  Kumar,M.2014. DNA from 12,000 year old Skeleton helps answer the Question: Who were the first Americans. Smithsonian Magazine. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/?no-ist
  Martinez-Cruzado, J C, Toro-Labrador, G, Ho-Fung, V, Estevez-Montero, M A, Et al (2001). Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals substantial Native American ancestry in Puerto Rico, Human Biology, Aug 2001
  Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Reveaed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698
  Malhi R S, Kemp B M, Eshleman J A, Cybulski J, Smith D G, Cousins S, Harry H. (2007). Mitochondrial haplogroup M discovered in prehistoric North America,. J Arch Sci, 34:642-648.
  Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". J Hum Evol 21:261-273.
  Neves WA and Meyer D (1993). The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16(Suppl) 150–1.
  Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1989). Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura 41 566–75.
  Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1990). The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81 247.
  Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1991). Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21 261–73.
  Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1991). Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21 261-273.
  Neves WA, Gonza´ lez-Jose´ R, Hubbe M, Kipnis R, Araujo AGM and Blasi O (2004). Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36 479-501.
  Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50 263-268.
  Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile. Interciencia 24 258-263, Available: http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf
  Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999a). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Interciencia 24 258–63.
  Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999b). Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution 37 129–33.
  Neves WA, Powell JF, Prous A and Ozolins EG (1998). Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 26(Suppl) 169.
  
  Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268
  Powell J.F. and Neves W.A . 1999. "Craniofacial morphology of the first Americans: pattern and process in thepeopling of the New World". Yearbook of Phy Anth 42:153-188
  Prufer K, and Meyer M.(2015). Comment on Late Pleistocene human skeletons and mtDNA link Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans. Science Feb.20 :835.
  Sun C, Kong QP, Palanichamy MG, Agrawal S, Bandelt HJ, Yao YG, Khan F, Zhu CL, Chaudhuri TK, Zhang YP. (2006) The dazzling array of basal branches in the mtDNA macrohaplogroup M from India as inferred from complete genomes. Mol Biol Evol , 23:683-690.
  "Tai-wiki-widbee". (2015). Retrieved 3/21/2015 at : http://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-evidence-supports-solutrean.html
  Weber, G. (2015) Fuegian &PatagonianGenetics -and the settling of the Americas. Retrieved on 3/20/2015 at: http://www.semiaquatic-ancestors.nl/darwin_bronnen/fuegans_herkomst_feiten_dna/text-FuegianGenetics.htm and http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/chapter54/text-Fuego/Genetics/text-FuegianGenetics.htm
  Wood,E.T., Stover,D.A., Ehret,C., Destro-Bisol,G., Spedini,G., McLeod, H., Louie,L., Bamshad,M., Strassmann,B.I., Soodyall,H., Hammer,M.F. (2005) Contrasting patterns of Y-chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa:evidence for sex-biased demographic processes. Eur J Hum Genet, 13,867-876.
  Winters, C. (2014). Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned? Advan in Anth, 4, 124-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2014.43016
  Winters, C. (2011). The Gibraltar out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. WebmedCentral BIOLOGY, 2, ArticleID: WMC002311. http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2311
  Winters,C. (2010). The African Origin of mtDNA Haplogroup M1 . Cur Res J Bio Sci 2(6): 380-389, 2010. https://www.academia.edu/3036833/The_African_Origin_of_mtDNA_Haplogroup_M1
  Winters, C. (2008). Aurignacian Culture: Evidence of Western Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. South Asian Anth, 8, 79-81.
  Yao YG, Kong QP, Bandelt HJ, Kivisild T, Zhang YP.(2002). Phylogeographic differentiation of mitochondrial DNA in Han chinese. Am J Hum Genet , 70:635-651.

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
The craniometric mesasurements of the Paleoamerican skeletons fall within the Black Variety of homo sapien sapiens: African, Australian and the Melanesian phenotypic range (Neves, Powell and Ozolins,1998, 1999a,1999b; Powell,2005). The craniometric measurements of the PaleoIndians match the multivariate standard deviations of these three populations.
The determination of the Paleoamericans as members of the Black Variety is not a new phenomena.
.



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

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

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

The finding by Novembre et al (2015) that genetically Kennewick man related mostly to the Karitiana falsifies their hypothesis. It is falsified because Skoglund et al (2015) found that the Karitiana and other Amozonian people in South America have an Australasian heritage. The identification of a relationship between Kennewick man and the Karitiana would continue to situate this Native American in the Paleoamerican group--not contemporary Native Americans.
Using craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods, Dr. Neves determined that Paleo Americans were either Australian, African or Melenesians (Neves , Powell and Ozolins, 1998,1999a,199b; Powell, 2005). The research of Neves indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, paleoamericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC.
The earliest evidence for Paleoamericans in Bazil of a Negro phynotype make it clear the Americas was a Negro continent until the coming of the Mongoloids 8kya . Although the physical features of contemporary Brazilians appears more mongoloid. These Native Americans continue to carry Negro genes dating back to the first migrations of Blacks to Brazil 100,000 years ago.

Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas

Pontus Skoglund, Swapan Mallick,Maria Cátira Bortolini,Niru Chennagiri,Tábita Hünemeier, Maria Luiza Petzl-Erler,Francisco Mauro Salzano,Nick Patterson & David Reich(2015), noted that:


 “Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America1, 2, 3, 4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)5, 6, 7, 8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted”.
The presence of an Australasian heritage in Brazil is interesting because it supports an Australian OoA event from Africa into Brazil 100kya.

Dr.Nieda Guidon claims that Africans were in Brazil 100,000 years ago. The evidence that fire existed in Brazil 65kya is an indication that man was at the site 65,000 years ago, since researchers found charcoal, which is the result of fire making.
The New York Times, reported that humans were Brazil 100,000 years ago .

See the New York Times video you would noted that Dr.Nieda Guidon supports her dating of human population in Brazil 100,000 years ago to ancient fire and tool making (NYT,2014).

If you view the video you will see that human occupation of Brazil 100,000 years ago is supported by man made fire, e.g., the charcoal, and tools.

Dr. Guidon who conducted excavation at the site notes at 2:09 the site is 100,000 years old. At 3:17 in the video scientists proved that the tools are the result of human craftsmanship .

It is interesting that it is becoming clear that people may have left Africa 100kya, instead of 60kya to settle the world. This may indicate that Australians made their way to America before the Khoisan.


The new evidence of anatomically modern humans (AMH) in Arabia, on Crete and now Brazil around 100,000 years ago suggest that AMH left Africa before 60kya.

We all know that humans originated in Africa over 150,000 years ago. The new evidence suggest five out of Africa (OoA) There were probably four major migration of the Africans into the Pacific. The first migration events.

The first people to migrate out of Africa 100-60kya were the Australians. These people demonstrate the physical type associated with the early homo sapien sapiens. The Australasian genes are carried by the Karitiana. It is time that researchers stop claiming the first Native Americans were not Negroes.


Reference:
Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1989. Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura, 41: 566–75

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1990. The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 81: 247.

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1991. Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 21: 261–73.

Neves, W. A. and Meyer, D. 1993. The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 16 (Suppl): 150–1.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F., Prous, A. and Ozolins, E. G. 1998. Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26(Suppl): 169.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999a. Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Intercieˆncia, 24: 258–63.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999b. Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 129–33.

Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273.

Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268

Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263.http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf

Neves, W.A., Gonza´ lez-Jose´ , R., Hubbe, M., Kipnis, R., Araujo, A.G.M., Blasi, O., 2004. Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36, 479-501

Neves, W. A., and M. Hubbe. 2005. Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:18,309–18,314.

NYT (New York Times). (2015) Human’s First Appearance in the Americas . http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4

Powell,J.F. (2005). First Americans:Races, Evolution and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press.

Skoglund et al (2015), Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas , NATURE ,525 ( 3 SEPTEMBER):104-108. Retrieved 5/1/2016 at :http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14895.epdf?referrer_access_token=4TuRenNBfBRS7tHNMAY1qdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0N6yB-nEyCdRoL51ykMO5E9z_7mdrRF_UTJvxtpDQnayOfwuJnrOCxIhdm8_7djDnDo9 O bq-VbpDatHfBozg8WnuFcDDHGC6D1QQbbgmyediLKefzmJLdqOP9IYieqkoaey_M8XA-n4Ua9CD3IbOslIqWUnXzIWbLwafl9bJMOQNAJlELt6cfooH162H7W_3B8%3D&tracking_referrer=mobile.nytimes.com

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

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Home
About ancient explorers
Category Archives: Early human migration into South America
Championing New Views of the First Americans
Posted on July 23, 2018

In 1963, when Niede Guidon was a young archaeologist working at the Museu Palista in Sao Paulo, Brazil, a friend showed her some photographs of ancient paintings on rock walls. Something about those photos made a profound impression on her. The site was called Pedra Furada, Pierced Rock, after a famous rock formation with a hole in it.

.


.

The remote area of northeastern Brazil where the photos were taken, stripped of its forests in colonial times, had suffered terrible erosion, silting of rivers, and subsequent desertification by the time Guidon visited in 1973. But its isolation had helped to preserve the paintings. As soon as she began studying the area, she realized it was something extraordinary.

Where most rock art sites in Europe are a single cave or a series of caves in a single mountain, Pedra Furada is a collection of over 900 sites with over 1150 images painted on the walls and ceilings, mostly with red ochre or other clays, and some burned bone charcoal. The oldest images date from 12,000 years old, the newest about 5,000 years old, showing a change in style over time from fingerwork to paintings created with cactus spines and brushes made of fibers or fur. They show people hunting with atlatls (dart throwers), dancing, mating, giving birth, and fighting. Many animal are represented, including caimans, llamas, pumas, deer, capybaras, turtles, fish, and iguanas.

Often the red deer are large, surrounded by small images of people, as in the panel shown. Other sections feature rows of marks and unidentified figures, and what seem to be narrative sequences.




Some large rectangular humanoid figures with patterned bodies are surrounded by smaller human forms with raised arms.

The treasure underfoot
What lay deep in the ground near the painted walls was even more surprising than the paintings. Guidon and her team spent years carefully excavating the areas, finding evidence of hearth fires and stone tools in layers ranging from 5,000 years old to 32,000 years old, with lower levels dating to 48,000 years old. Repeated analysis by independent labs, mostly in France, supported those dates. Guidon herself, never one to shy away from an argument, maintained in a 1985 article in Nature that the site showed clear evidence of human occupation 60,000 years ago!
“Clovis First”
Her findings enraged American archaeologists because they challenged the common belief that people arrived in the Americas by walking across the land bridge from Asia, called Beringia, to Alaska during the Ice Age, about 13,000 years ago. From there, they supposedly dispersed all through the Americas.

This theory began in the 1930’s with the discovery of a finely-made spear point lodged in a mastodon bone near Clovis, New Mexico. When other points/arrowheads with this same design were found in neighboring states, and then across the country, archaeologists decided that these points were made by East Asian big game hunters who followed their prey across Beringia and down an ice-free corridor between glaciers into what is now the western United States. The presence of the Clovis points became the basis for a belief in a Clovis people and a Clovis culture that was so effective it spread from north to south throughout the Americas. The Clovis First theory was repeated endlessly in school textbooks throughout the 20th century. (The Clovis point in the photo shows the characteristic fine work on both sides (bi-face).

There were a few glitches in the theory, but they were largely ignored. For instance, the greatest concentration of Clovis-style points has been found in the southeastern US, not in Alaska or northern Canada, so we can assume they moved from the east to the west, not the other way around. (See diagram of Clovis point distribution)
Plus, there was never any proof that the Clovis-style points indicated either a people or a culture. Today, iPhones are found all over the world, but they represent neither a people nor a culture. They’re simply a very useful bit of technology. Probably Clovis points were too. A valuable trade item, endlessly copied – spreading across the continent.
But all of these problems with “Clovis First” were dismissed by the established powerhouses in American archaeology, especially at Harvard and Yale.
Dennis Stanford, now with the Smithsonian Museum of History, admitted that when he was excavating a site in Florida and came across signs of human habitation far older than Clovis dates, he told his team to fill the pit back in and tell no one about it since their findings would never be accepted.
Who’s she?
Then along came this brash Brazilian woman with her French education and her crazy theories about early man in Brazil. The US archaeological community tore her findings apart, claiming the tools were made by monkeys, or they were “geofacts,” natural objects altered by weather or falling to the ground. In a heated response to a question about them from a reporter from The Guardian, Guidon said, “US archaeologists believe that the artifacts are geofacts created naturally because the North Americans CANNOT BELIEVE they do not have the oldest site!” When critics said the carbon hearth samples were the result of natural fires, she pointed out the sites lay well inside caves or rock overhangs, inside circles of stones. No carbon was found in sample pits dug outside the shelters. “The carbon is not from a natural fire. It is only found inside the sites. You don’t get natural fires inside the shelters,” she retorted. “Americans criticize WITHOUT KNOWING. The problem is not mine! The problem is theirs! Americans should excavate more and write less!”
Guidon challenged American archaeologists to come to the site, draw their own samples, and do their own tests. They refused.
When they couldn’t make her back down, US archeologists discredited, belittled, then ignored Guidon, her research, and her site. It simply never appeared in surveys of ancient settlements in the Americas. “Everybody has pretty much deep-sixed Guidon,” one noted American archaeologist commented.
But time, it seems, is on her side.

New finds in Chile and South Carolina
Tom Dillehay, an American archaeologist working at sites in southern and central Chile, found extensive evidence of human habitation there 18,000 years ago, 5,000 years before the supposed appearance of the “Clovis people.” Settlers on the Chilean coast built lodges, ate a variety of seafood, and used different kinds of seaweed for medicines. Presence of quartz and tar from other areas indicated either a trade network or a wide area of exploration. Even though Dillehay had painstakingly recorded every discovery and each step of the dating process, and used independent labs for verification, the established archaeological community initially refused to consider his conclusions. He had to spend ten years defending his findings, but thanks to his persistence, there’s now at least a bit of doubt concerning Clovis First.
Albert Goodyear, who has been working at the Topper Hill chert mine site in South Carolina since the 1980’s, ran into similar problems when he found a rich deposit of Clovis style points and then, much farther down, ran into a completely different set of hearths and tools. The deepest layers dated to 50,000 years old. Again, the archaeological community raged against the findings, making life so miserable for Goodyear that he considered leaving the field completely.
For scholars with a vested interest in preserving Clovis First, it simply wasn’t possible that there were settlements before Clovis. If so, all their work would be meaningless.

Santa Elina rock shelter and more
Then more news came from Brazil, including discoveries at Santa Elina rock shelter in central Brazil, where pierced bone ornaments made from giant sloths (photo) were dated over 23,000 years old. Like Pedra Furada, it too had rock art and evidence of occasional, seasonal use over thousands of years. A site in Uruguay yielded evidence of humans hunting giant sloths 32,000 years ago. Now, these finds are being lumped together with Guidon’s research, indicating a record of human habitation in the area at least 30,000 years old. Some suggest over 50,000 years old.
Other revelations have followed. But the most dramatic challenge has come from Steven and Kathleen Holen, who have long held the belief that people were in the Americas before 40,000 years ago. In a paper in Nature, they argue that break marks on 130,000 year old mastodon bones found in Southern California suggest hominins (ancestors of modern humans) did the butchering using stone tools, perhaps to get at the marrow or use the bones for tools. To illustrate their point, the Holens used rocks they found at the site to break open elephant bones.
The dust still hasn’t settled from the fracas over their claims.
Even more radical theories
As Niede Guidon said years ago, “I think it’s wrong that everyone came running across Bering chasing mammoths – that’s infantile. I think they also came along the seas.” Now in her 80’s and mostly retired, she hasn’t softened her tone at all. She currently maintains that people first arrived in South America from West Africa, perhaps as far back as 100,000 years ago.


She says they could have floated or paddled across the sea with the current and the wind in their favor. Both journeys have been replicated in modern times. (The diagram at the left shows the route a 70-year-old Polish kayaker took in his solo journey across the Atlantic in 2017.) If you look at the globe, an African origin certainly makes more sense for settlements in northeastern Brazil than having people go through Alaska, down the coast of North America and Central America, then across the Andes and the Amazon Basin to get to Pedra Furada.

But Guidon isn’t stopping there. She suggests that the group from Africa may have merged with groups from the South Pacific that came by sea, settled on the Pacific coast and later crossed lower South America.
Evidence for the South Pacific theory
Several native populations in South America were completely eradicated by the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors. One group, the Botocudo, were murdered by the Portuguese because they wouldn’t submit to enslavement. Oddly, the Portuguese kept several of the skulls, which later wound up in a museum. When modern scientists drilled into the teeth and tested the DNA, they found markers typical of Polynesians and Australians. (Drawings of a Botocudo man, above). See earlier post on “Chickens, Sweet Potatoes, and Polynesians in Brazil.”
The Long Chronology
Increasingly, it looks as if there is no one simple answer to the origin or timeline of the peopling of the Americas. A new theory, called the Long Chronology, posits multiple waves of immigrants from different places arriving over a long period of time, probably with only a few successful, surviving settlements. This pattern seems more promising than Clovis First – and certainly more defensible given new discoveries. This does not rule out migration from Siberia or along the west coast of North America. It simply takes away its claim of exclusivity.
Serra da Capivara

Meanwhile, Niede Guidon is busy trying to get funding to keep the 320,000 acre national park she fought for, now called Serra da Capivara, open. (Entrance shown in photo.) Her research helped establish it as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1991, but government support is undependable. Few American archaeologists have ever visited. Only the hardiest tourists make the trip. But Guidon’s work is finally getting some attention from the press and the academic world. Robson Bonnichsen, from the University of Maine’s Center for the Study of the First Americans, feels her work needs more attention. “We’re trying to get some eminent American scholars down there to study the methods and results,” he said. He plans to lead the first American excavation team there.
This should be interesting to watch. Perhaps if an American man gets the same results, the data will get more respect. If so, Guidon will probably wonder what took the rest of the world so long to catch up with her.

Sources and interesting reading:
Bellos, Alex, “Archaeologists feud over oldest Americans, The Guardian, 10 February 2000, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/feb/11/archaeology.internationalnews
Bower, Bruce, “People may have lived in razil more than 20,000 years ago,” Science News, 5 September 2017, https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/stone-age-people-brazil-20000-years-ago
Bower, Bruce, “Texas toolmakers add to the debate over who the first Americans were,” Science News, 11 July 2018, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/texas-toolmakers-add-debate-over-who-first-americans-were
Brooke, James, “Ancient Find, But How Ancient?” 17 April 1990, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/17/science/ancient-find-but-how-ancient.html
Fenton, Bruce, “Brazilian rock shelter proves inhabited Americas 23,000 years ago” The Vintage News, 29 January 2018, https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/29/brazilian-rock-shelter/
Guidon, Niede, “Nature and the age of the depostis in Pedra Furada, Brazil: Reply to Meltzer, Adovasio and others, Antiquity, vol.68, 1994. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285362399_Nature-and-age_of_the_depostis_in_Pedra_Furada_Brazil…
“Interview with Niede Guidon,” Crosscultural Maria-Brazil, http://www.maria-brazil.org/niede-guidon.htm
Jansen, Roberta, “The archaeologist who fights to preserve the vestiges of the first men of the Americas,” BBC News, 12 March 2016, https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2016/03/160312_perfil_niede_guidon_rj_ab
“Niede Guidon,” Wikipedia, https://en.eikipedia.org/wiki/NI%C3%A8de_Guidon
“Niede Guidon,” WikiVividly, https://wikivividly.com/wiki/Niede_guidon
“Pedra Furada,” Britannica Online Encyclopedia, https://www.britannica.com/place/Pedra-Furada
“Pedra Furada,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Furada
“Pedra Furada, Brazil: Paleoindians, Paintings, and Paradoxes, an interview with Niede Guidon and others, Athena Review, vol. 3, no.2: Peopling of the Americas,
Peron, Roberto, “Pedra Furada the Pierce Rock Site,” Peron Rants (blog) 28 April 2017, https://rperon1017blog.wordpress.com/2017/04/28/pedra-furada/
Powledge, Tabitha, “News about ancient humanity: Humans in California 130,000 years ago?” PLOS Blogs, 5 May 2017, http://blogs.plos.org/onscience blogs/2017/05/05/news-about-ancient-humanity-humans-in-California-130000-years ago…
“The Rock Art of Pedra Furada,” The Bradshaw Foundation, http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/south_america/serra_da_capivara/pedra_furada/index.php
Rock Art panel, photo by Diego Rego Monteiro – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43861884
Romero, Simon, “Discoveries Challenge Beliefs on Humans’ Arrival in the Americas,” The New York Times, 27 March 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html
“Serra da Capivara National Park,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serra_da_Capivara_National_Park
Wade, Lizzie, “Traces of some of South America’s earliest people found under ancient dirt pyramid,” Science, 24 May 2017, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/traces-some-south-america-s-earliest-people-found-under-ancient-dirt-pyramid
Wilford, John Noble, “Doubts Cast on Report of Earliest Americans,” The New York Times, 14 February 1995, https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/14/science/doubts-cast-on-report-of-earliest-americans.html
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

.


There is no way you can claim that there were no Black Native Americans before 1492, because even the Spanish said the first Indians they met were Black people like the Africans and people of South Indian. Neither genetic evidence nor craniometrics deny the existence of Black Native Americans. The Native Americans were called Indians because they were Black skinned like the Natives of South India. As I have noted above Quatrafages noted the numerous American tribes that were Negro Native Americans.

Craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods have determined the Native American populations. This research indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, paleoamericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC.

The determination of the Paleoamericans as members of the Black Variety is not a new phenomena. Howells (1973, 1989, 1995) using multivariate analyses, determined that the Easter Island population was characterized as Australo-Melanesian, while other skeletons from South America were found to be related to Africans and Australians (Coon, 1962; Dixon, 2001; Howell, 1989, 1995; Lahr, 1996). The African-Australo-Melanesian morphology was widespread in North and South America. For example skeletal remains belonging to the Black Variety have been found in Brazil (Neves, Powell, Prous and Ozolins, 1998; Neves et al., 1998), Columbian Highlands (Neves et al., 1995; Powell, 2005), Mexico (Gonza’lez-Jose, 2012), Florida (Howells, 1995), and Southern Patazonia (Neves et al., 1999a, 1999b).
.



.

We don’t have to depend on just paintings to acknowledge the Negro/African presence in America before 1492, we also have the facial reconstructions of paleoAmericans that have resulted from craniometrics that show these people were Blacks. The bioanthropologist Walter Neves’s reconstruction of the first Americans evidenced Negroid features for the Paleoamerican we call Luzia.


What made this finding startling was that Neves using the mahalanobis distance and principal component analysis, found that 75 other skulls from Lagos Santa, were also phenotypically African or Australian (Neves et al., 2004).So stop trying to claim there were no Blacks in America before 1492, Blacks had been in America 94,000 years according to Dr. Nieda Guidon before the mongloid Native Americans found in America today arrived in the United States 6000 years ago.

References:

Coon CS (1962). The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf).

Dixon EJ (2001). Human colonization of the Americas: timing, chronology and process. Quaternary Science Review 20 277–99.

Gonza´lez-Jose´ R, Hernande´z M, Neves WA, Pucciarelli HM and Correal G (2002). Cra´neos del Pleistoceno tardio-Holoceno tempramo de Me´xico en relacio´n al patro´n morfolo´gico paleoamericano. Paper presented at the 7th Congress of the Latin American Association of Biological Anthropology, Mexico City.

Howells WW (1973). Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Human Populations, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University) 67.

Howells WW (1989). Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University) 79. Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Cerca Grande 497

Howells WW (1995). Who’s Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurments, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University) 82.

Neves WA and Hubbe M (2005). Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(18) 309–18, 314.

Neves WA and Meyer D (1993). The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16(Suppl) 150–1.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1989). Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura 41 566–75.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1990). The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81 247.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1991). Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21 261–73.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1991). Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21 261-273.

Neves WA, Gonza´ lez-Jose´ R, Hubbe M, Kipnis R, Araujo AGM and Blasi O (2004). Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36 479-501.

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50 263-268.

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile. Interciencia 24 258-263, Available: http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999a). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Interciencia 24 258–63.

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999b). Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution 37 129–33.

Neves WA, Powell JF, Prous A and Ozolins EG (1998). Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 26(Suppl) 169.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ The genomic data is clear that these Paleo-Indians are not related to Australo-Melanesians directly but indirectly as some Paleo-Americans and some Australo-Melanesians share admixture from the same Population Y.

This was addressed before in other threads like here and here.

Population Y genomics aside, we also have non-metric odontological data showing that modern Amerindians predominantly have not only sinodonty but super-sinodonty as shown by the 2016 Richard Scott et al. paper, yet in certain parts of South and Central America there are traces of sundadonty which was more prevalent in paleolithic times as shown in the 2009 Richard Sutter paper.

And earlier this year a paper came out by James Chatter et al. about Naia's dental morphology vs. other Paleo-indians.

ABSTRACT
The dental morphology of the earliest Americans is poorly known, partly because existing data are
largely unpublished and partly because dental wear is typically extreme in the few complete
dentitions available. The remains of Naia, a 13,000–12,000 year-old young woman from
Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula, possess a complete dental record in perfect condition, offering the
unique opportunity to record the dental morphology of an early Paleoindian and a chance to
address the long-standing debate about whether these first people exhibited Sundadont or
Sinodont dental morphology. As an individual, her dentition would fit comfortably in the
Sinodont grouping. However, when she is included in the population of North American
skeletal remains that can be confidently placed before ∼9000 years ago, a different pattern
emerges. The Paleoindians fall neatly between the two dental patterns, suggesting that the
founding North American population exhibits a dental pattern of its own, independent of its
east Asian relatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Clyde, nobody here takes you seriously because you are still stuck in the stone age of bio-anthropology.

Yes the paleo-indians had "negroid" features but that doesn't make them black anymore than the "caucasoid" features of Egypto-Nubians make those peoples white.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Clyde, nobody here takes you seriously because you are still stuck in the stone age of bio-anthropology.

Yes the paleo-indians had "negroid" features but that doesn't make them black anymore than the "caucasoid" features of Egypto-Nubians make those peoples white.

---

your definition of black is anybody dark skinned
 

---

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


http://asmerom.unm.edu/Research/Papers/Chatters%20et%20al%20Naia%20story%20%20Science%20Manuscript.pdf

______________________________________

At minimum, because these are some of the the oldest remains found in the Americas
people carrying Y DNA Haplogroup Q
and mtDNA D1, D4 and C1 go back to at least
10-13,000 years in the Americas
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Clyde, nobody here takes you seriously because you are still stuck in the stone age of bio-anthropology.

Yes the paleo-indians had "negroid" features but that doesn't make them black anymore than the "caucasoid" features of Egypto-Nubians make those peoples white.

---

your definition of black is anybody dark skinned

---

.Not Really


.


The Indian on horseback is a negro or Black Native American. A negro is a person with:

1) Direct African or Black Asian ancestry

2) Brown to yellow complexion

3) Long limbs

4) shape of the head and face varies

5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin

6) curly to straight hair

7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group

8) thick or thin lips

Note the varying shape of the eyes evident in these negroes.

8) thick or thin lips

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


http://asmerom.unm.edu/Research/Papers/Chatters%20et%20al%20Naia%20story%20%20Science%20Manuscript.pdf

______________________________________

At minimum, because these are some of the the oldest remains found in the Americas
people carrying Y DNA Haplogroup Q
and mtDNA D1, D4 and C1 go back to at least
10-13,000 years in the Americas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
[qb] ^ Clyde, nobody here takes you seriously because you are still stuck in the stone age of bio-anthropology.

Yes the paleo-indians had "negroid" features but that doesn't make them black anymore than the "caucasoid" features of Egypto-Nubians make those peoples white.

---

your definition of black is anybody dark skinned

---

.Not Really

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


http://asmerom.unm.edu/Research/Papers/Chatters%20et%20al%20Naia%20story%20%20Science%20Manuscript.pdf

______________________________________

At minimum, because these are some of the the oldest remains found in the Americas
people carrying Y DNA Haplogroup Q
and mtDNA D1, D4 and C1 go back to at least
10-13,000 years in the Americas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
At minimum, because these are some of the the oldest remains found in the Americas
people carrying Y DNA Haplogroup Q
and mtDNA D1, D4 and C1 go back to at least
10-13,000 years in the Americas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Phenotypically Australoids are synonymous with negro.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
A negro is a person with:

1) Direct African or Black Asian ancestry

2) Brown to yellow complexion

3) Long limbs

4) shape of the head and face varies

5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin

6) curly to straight hair

7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group

8) thick or thin lips

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
No. So stop twisting words. while what Dr. Winters is rather broad, the issue is if allow negro/oid describe a physical type of person or group and how that negro base looks with the elements Mr. Winter's outlined.

---

No, if you look on the previous page I have quoted Dr. Winters exact words, his definition of "negro", nothing added , nothing taken away

fine
then what traits are not negro?

please be patient Dr. Winters will be answering this momentarily
 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
Dewayne Turrentine and his wife Reagan Gomenz,to me they look racially the same but differing in their negro element. Reagan is of Afro-Latina decent and Dewayne is ADOS,from what I can tell,they aren't recently mixed but may have a non African grandparent.



 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
[QB] Dewayne Turrentine and his wife Reagan Gomenz,to me they look racially the same but differing in their negro element. Reagan is of Afro-Latina decent and Dewayne is ADOS,from what I can tell,they aren't recently mixed but may have a non African grandparent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thereal:
a Black person who appears more African and the offspring comes out mixed looking or ambiguous. Think of Ciara and Russell Wilson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And if that is the case then all humans are Africans because all human features, from face shape, eyes, to nose shape, lip shape and almost everything else, except for very light skin originates in Africa also as humans originate in Africa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The early populations of the Americas came from Asia and possibly the Pacific. They were not Africans. Just like the Aeta and "Negritoes" are not Africans, nor are the Papuans or the Australian Aborigines or Pacific Islanders. Black indigenous populations in the US or anywhere else are just that black indigenous populations, where black is a reference to skin color not geographic region of origin. "Black" skin is the result of adaptation to tropical UV exposure which is not unique to the geographic boundaries of Africa. Anybody saying that black skin is a marker for being "African" as if it cannot occur outside of Africa is being dishonest. And if that is the case then all humans are Africans because all human features, from face shape, eyes, to nose shape, lip shape and almost everything else, except for very light skin originates in Africa also as humans originate in Africa.

Asia is diverse and has a wide range of features among indigenous Asians and the early Americans were representative of that diversity and you still see it today.

We have had this discussion many times on this forum before. Unfortunately there is a big push by some elements in AA society to push this narrative of "indigenous" Americans being African American and that is mostly from those claiming to be "Moors". But the funny part about this obvious pseudo-science is that a lot of these folks claiming Moorish ancestry deny being African when "Moor" is associated with Africans. It is simply a circular nonsensical line of reasoning that some folks fall victim to, including going as far as denying the trans atlantic slave trade as the basis for most black Africans in the US or Western Hemisphere.

---

What evidence do you have that the first Americans came from Asia. People have been in North America since 130,000 years ago. There was no way to migrate from Asia into the Americas before 15kya.
The Melanesians do not arrive in the Pacific until after 1500 as carriers of the Lapita culture. The Australians do not get to Australia until 60kya. By 60kya people had been in California 70,000 years. Where did the Asians you claim came from Asia came from.

Please cite the archaeological evidence and etc., that supports a migration of AMH into North America from Asia into America instead of from Africa.

About ancient explorers
Category Archives: Early human migration into South America
Championing New Views of the First Americans
Posted on July 23, 2018

In 1963, when Niede Guidon was a young archaeologist working at the Museu Palista in Sao Paulo, Brazil, a friend showed her some photographs of ancient paintings on rock walls. Something about those photos made a profound impression on her. The site was called Pedra Furada, Pierced Rock, after a famous rock formation with a hole in it.

.


.

The remote area of northeastern Brazil where the photos were taken, stripped of its forests in colonial times, had suffered terrible erosion, silting of rivers, and subsequent desertification by the time Guidon visited in 1973. But its isolation had helped to preserve the paintings. As soon as she began studying the area, she realized it was something extraordinary.

Where most rock art sites in Europe are a single cave or a series of caves in a single mountain, Pedra Furada is a collection of over 900 sites with over 1150 images painted on the walls and ceilings, mostly with red ochre or other clays, and some burned bone charcoal. The oldest images date from 12,000 years old, the newest about 5,000 years old, showing a change in style over time from fingerwork to paintings created with cactus spines and brushes made of fibers or fur. They show people hunting with atlatls (dart throwers), dancing, mating, giving birth, and fighting. Many animal are represented, including caimans, llamas, pumas, deer, capybaras, turtles, fish, and iguanas.

Often the red deer are large, surrounded by small images of people, as in the panel shown. Other sections feature rows of marks and unidentified figures, and what seem to be narrative sequences.




Some large rectangular humanoid figures with patterned bodies are surrounded by smaller human forms with raised arms.

The treasure underfoot
What lay deep in the ground near the painted walls was even more surprising than the paintings. Guidon and her team spent years carefully excavating the areas, finding evidence of hearth fires and stone tools in layers ranging from 5,000 years old to 32,000 years old, with lower levels dating to 48,000 years old. Repeated analysis by independent labs, mostly in France, supported those dates. Guidon herself, never one to shy away from an argument, maintained in a 1985 article in Nature that the site showed clear evidence of human occupation 60,000 years ago!
“Clovis First”
Her findings enraged American archaeologists because they challenged the common belief that people arrived in the Americas by walking across the land bridge from Asia, called Beringia, to Alaska during the Ice Age, about 13,000 years ago. From there, they supposedly dispersed all through the Americas.

This theory began in the 1930’s with the discovery of a finely-made spear point lodged in a mastodon bone near Clovis, New Mexico. When other points/arrowheads with this same design were found in neighboring states, and then across the country, archaeologists decided that these points were made by East Asian big game hunters who followed their prey across Beringia and down an ice-free corridor between glaciers into what is now the western United States. The presence of the Clovis points became the basis for a belief in a Clovis people and a Clovis culture that was so effective it spread from north to south throughout the Americas. The Clovis First theory was repeated endlessly in school textbooks throughout the 20th century. (The Clovis point in the photo shows the characteristic fine work on both sides (bi-face).

There were a few glitches in the theory, but they were largely ignored. For instance, the greatest concentration of Clovis-style points has been found in the southeastern US, not in Alaska or northern Canada, so we can assume they moved from the east to the west, not the other way around. (See diagram of Clovis point distribution)
Plus, there was never any proof that the Clovis-style points indicated either a people or a culture. Today, iPhones are found all over the world, but they represent neither a people nor a culture. They’re simply a very useful bit of technology. Probably Clovis points were too. A valuable trade item, endlessly copied – spreading across the continent.
But all of these problems with “Clovis First” were dismissed by the established powerhouses in American archaeology, especially at Harvard and Yale.
Dennis Stanford, now with the Smithsonian Museum of History, admitted that when he was excavating a site in Florida and came across signs of human habitation far older than Clovis dates, he told his team to fill the pit back in and tell no one about it since their findings would never be accepted.
Who’s she?
Then along came this brash Brazilian woman with her French education and her crazy theories about early man in Brazil. The US archaeological community tore her findings apart, claiming the tools were made by monkeys, or they were “geofacts,” natural objects altered by weather or falling to the ground. In a heated response to a question about them from a reporter from The Guardian, Guidon said, “US archaeologists believe that the artifacts are geofacts created naturally because the North Americans CANNOT BELIEVE they do not have the oldest site!” When critics said the carbon hearth samples were the result of natural fires, she pointed out the sites lay well inside caves or rock overhangs, inside circles of stones. No carbon was found in sample pits dug outside the shelters. “The carbon is not from a natural fire. It is only found inside the sites. You don’t get natural fires inside the shelters,” she retorted. “Americans criticize WITHOUT KNOWING. The problem is not mine! The problem is theirs! Americans should excavate more and write less!”
Guidon challenged American archaeologists to come to the site, draw their own samples, and do their own tests. They refused.
When they couldn’t make her back down, US archeologists discredited, belittled, then ignored Guidon, her research, and her site. It simply never appeared in surveys of ancient settlements in the Americas. “Everybody has pretty much deep-sixed Guidon,” one noted American archaeologist commented.
But time, it seems, is on her side.

New finds in Chile and South Carolina
Tom Dillehay, an American archaeologist working at sites in southern and central Chile, found extensive evidence of human habitation there 18,000 years ago, 5,000 years before the supposed appearance of the “Clovis people.” Settlers on the Chilean coast built lodges, ate a variety of seafood, and used different kinds of seaweed for medicines. Presence of quartz and tar from other areas indicated either a trade network or a wide area of exploration. Even though Dillehay had painstakingly recorded every discovery and each step of the dating process, and used independent labs for verification, the established archaeological community initially refused to consider his conclusions. He had to spend ten years defending his findings, but thanks to his persistence, there’s now at least a bit of doubt concerning Clovis First.
Albert Goodyear, who has been working at the Topper Hill chert mine site in South Carolina since the 1980’s, ran into similar problems when he found a rich deposit of Clovis style points and then, much farther down, ran into a completely different set of hearths and tools. The deepest layers dated to 50,000 years old. Again, the archaeological community raged against the findings, making life so miserable for Goodyear that he considered leaving the field completely.
For scholars with a vested interest in preserving Clovis First, it simply wasn’t possible that there were settlements before Clovis. If so, all their work would be meaningless.

Santa Elina rock shelter and more
Then more news came from Brazil, including discoveries at Santa Elina rock shelter in central Brazil, where pierced bone ornaments made from giant sloths (photo) were dated over 23,000 years old. Like Pedra Furada, it too had rock art and evidence of occasional, seasonal use over thousands of years. A site in Uruguay yielded evidence of humans hunting giant sloths 32,000 years ago. Now, these finds are being lumped together with Guidon’s research, indicating a record of human habitation in the area at least 30,000 years old. Some suggest over 50,000 years old.
Other revelations have followed. But the most dramatic challenge has come from Steven and Kathleen Holen, who have long held the belief that people were in the Americas before 40,000 years ago. In a paper in Nature, they argue that break marks on 130,000 year old mastodon bones found in Southern California suggest hominins (ancestors of modern humans) did the butchering using stone tools, perhaps to get at the marrow or use the bones for tools. To illustrate their point, the Holens used rocks they found at the site to break open elephant bones.
The dust still hasn’t settled from the fracas over their claims.
Even more radical theories
As Niede Guidon said years ago, “I think it’s wrong that everyone came running across Bering chasing mammoths – that’s infantile. I think they also came along the seas.” Now in her 80’s and mostly retired, she hasn’t softened her tone at all. She currently maintains that people first arrived in South America from West Africa, perhaps as far back as 100,000 years ago.


She says they could have floated or paddled across the sea with the current and the wind in their favor. Both journeys have been replicated in modern times. (The diagram at the left shows the route a 70-year-old Polish kayaker took in his solo journey across the Atlantic in 2017.) If you look at the globe, an African origin certainly makes more sense for settlements in northeastern Brazil than having people go through Alaska, down the coast of North America and Central America, then across the Andes and the Amazon Basin to get to Pedra Furada.

But Guidon isn’t stopping there. She suggests that the group from Africa may have merged with groups from the South Pacific that came by sea, settled on the Pacific coast and later crossed lower South America.
Evidence for the South Pacific theory
Several native populations in South America were completely eradicated by the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors. One group, the Botocudo, were murdered by the Portuguese because they wouldn’t submit to enslavement. Oddly, the Portuguese kept several of the skulls, which later wound up in a museum. When modern scientists drilled into the teeth and tested the DNA, they found markers typical of Polynesians and Australians. (Drawings of a Botocudo man, above). See earlier post on “Chickens, Sweet Potatoes, and Polynesians in Brazil.”
The Long Chronology
Increasingly, it looks as if there is no one simple answer to the origin or timeline of the peopling of the Americas. A new theory, called the Long Chronology, posits multiple waves of immigrants from different places arriving over a long period of time, probably with only a few successful, surviving settlements. This pattern seems more promising than Clovis First – and certainly more defensible given new discoveries. This does not rule out migration from Siberia or along the west coast of North America. It simply takes away its claim of exclusivity.
Serra da Capivara

Meanwhile, Niede Guidon is busy trying to get funding to keep the 320,000 acre national park she fought for, now called Serra da Capivara, open. (Entrance shown in photo.) Her research helped establish it as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1991, but government support is undependable. Few American archaeologists have ever visited. Only the hardiest tourists make the trip. But Guidon’s work is finally getting some attention from the press and the academic world. Robson Bonnichsen, from the University of Maine’s Center for the Study of the First Americans, feels her work needs more attention. “We’re trying to get some eminent American scholars down there to study the methods and results,” he said. He plans to lead the first American excavation team there.
This should be interesting to watch. Perhaps if an American man gets the same results, the data will get more respect. If so, Guidon will probably wonder what took the rest of the world so long to catch up with her.

Sources and interesting reading:
Bellos, Alex, “Archaeologists feud over oldest Americans, The Guardian, 10 February 2000, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/feb/11/archaeology.internationalnews
Bower, Bruce, “People may have lived in razil more than 20,000 years ago,” Science News, 5 September 2017, https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/stone-age-people-brazil-20000-years-ago
Bower, Bruce, “Texas toolmakers add to the debate over who the first Americans were,” Science News, 11 July 2018, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/texas-toolmakers-add-debate-over-who-first-americans-were
Brooke, James, “Ancient Find, But How Ancient?” 17 April 1990, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/17/science/ancient-find-but-how-ancient.html
Fenton, Bruce, “Brazilian rock shelter proves inhabited Americas 23,000 years ago” The Vintage News, 29 January 2018, https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/29/brazilian-rock-shelter/
Guidon, Niede, “Nature and the age of the depostis in Pedra Furada, Brazil: Reply to Meltzer, Adovasio and others, Antiquity, vol.68, 1994. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285362399_Nature-and-age_of_the_depostis_in_Pedra_Furada_Brazil…
“Interview with Niede Guidon,” Crosscultural Maria-Brazil, http://www.maria-brazil.org/niede-guidon.htm
Jansen, Roberta, “The archaeologist who fights to preserve the vestiges of the first men of the Americas,” BBC News, 12 March 2016, https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2016/03/160312_perfil_niede_guidon_rj_ab
“Niede Guidon,” Wikipedia, https://en.eikipedia.org/wiki/NI%C3%A8de_Guidon
“Niede Guidon,” WikiVividly, https://wikivividly.com/wiki/Niede_guidon
“Pedra Furada,” Britannica Online Encyclopedia, https://www.britannica.com/place/Pedra-Furada
“Pedra Furada,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Furada
“Pedra Furada, Brazil: Paleoindians, Paintings, and Paradoxes, an interview with Niede Guidon and others, Athena Review, vol. 3, no.2: Peopling of the Americas,
Peron, Roberto, “Pedra Furada the Pierce Rock Site,” Peron Rants (blog) 28 April 2017, https://rperon1017blog.wordpress.com/2017/04/28/pedra-furada/
Powledge, Tabitha, “News about ancient humanity: Humans in California 130,000 years ago?” PLOS Blogs, 5 May 2017, http://blogs.plos.org/onscience blogs/2017/05/05/news-about-ancient-humanity-humans-in-California-130000-years ago…
“The Rock Art of Pedra Furada,” The Bradshaw Foundation, http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/south_america/serra_da_capivara/pedra_furada/index.php
Rock Art panel, photo by Diego Rego Monteiro – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43861884
Romero, Simon, “Discoveries Challenge Beliefs on Humans’ Arrival in the Americas,” The New York Times, 27 March 2015, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html
“Serra da Capivara National Park,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serra_da_Capivara_National_Park
Wade, Lizzie, “Traces of some of South America’s earliest people found under ancient dirt pyramid,” Science, 24 May 2017, http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/traces-some-south-america-s-earliest-people-found-under-ancient-dirt-pyramid
Wilford, John Noble, “Doubts Cast on Report of Earliest Americans,” The New York Times, 14 February 1995, https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/14/science/doubts-cast-on-report-of-earliest-americans.html
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The early populations of the Americas came from Asia and possibly the Pacific. They were not Africans. Just like the Aeta and "Negritoes" are not Africans, nor are the Papuans or the Australian Aborigines or Pacific Islanders. Black indigenous populations in the US or anywhere else are just that black indigenous populations, where black is a reference to skin color not geographic region of origin. "Black" skin is the result of adaptation to tropical UV exposure which is not unique to the geographic boundaries of Africa. Anybody saying that black skin is a marker for being "African" as if it cannot occur outside of Africa is being dishonest. And if that is the case then all humans are Africans because all human features, from face shape, eyes, to nose shape, lip shape and almost everything else, except for very light skin originates in Africa also as humans originate in Africa.

Asia is diverse and has a wide range of features among indigenous Asians and the early Americans were representative of that diversity and you still see it today.

We have had this discussion many times on this forum before. Unfortunately there is a big push by some elements in AA society to push this narrative of "indigenous" Americans being African American and that is mostly from those claiming to be "Moors". But the funny part about this obvious pseudo-science is that a lot of these folks claiming Moorish ancestry deny being African when "Moor" is associated with Africans. It is simply a circular nonsensical line of reasoning that some folks fall victim to, including going as far as denying the trans atlantic slave trade as the basis for most black Africans in the US or Western Hemisphere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
A negro is a person with:

1) Direct African or Black Asian ancestry

2) Brown to yellow complexion

3) Long limbs

4) shape of the head and face varies

5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin

6) curly to straight hair

7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group

8) thick or thin lips

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Nobody takes you serious. You're just upset because I was able to show that what you wrote lacked any foundation. I write this because , there are some people who may want to hear the truth rather than lies and falsehoods to maintain white supremacy.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

your definition of black is anybody dark skinned

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

your definition of black is anybody dark skinned [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti:
Don't go back to your lying ways. My definition of 'black' is the standard dictionary one that most people around the world use. 'Dark' is a relative term so the question is how dark. I myself am dark skinned compared to a European like yourself but I'm never labeled as 'black'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
.
Population Y, the real First Americans?

I wonder what these people would have looked like? Would they have looked Black like modern Australasians, or would they have been lighter brown and more "Mongoloid" in appearance like modern East Asian and Native Americans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

Population Y, the real First Americans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Here we go again. Black skin exists all over the planet and not just in Africa. Black skinned native Americans are Native Americans not Africans. Black skinned Asians are Asians not Africans.

We have discussed this many times before:

https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=001763;p=1

https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=009981;p=1

https://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=004571;p=1

There is nothing wrong with celebrating black people around the world in ancient and modern times along with their culture and history. Obviously that disproves the notion that black skin equates with inferiority as the earliest cultures and civilization often came from people with black skin. But to call all of these people Africans is just as much pseudoscience as anything else. If you go back further in time all humans converge on an Africoid phenotype because all humans originate in Africa, but that is over tens of thousands of years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Nobody takes you serious. You're just upset because I was able to show that what you wrote lacked any foundation. I write this because , there are some people who may want to hear the truth rather than lies and falsehoods to maintain white supremacy.

.

---

Really?! Brandon and I provided sources from actual experts while the only you provide is your own opinion which doesn't amount to much since they are devoid of facts and evidence. You are only peddling outdated crap invented by white supremacists from the 19th century such as "negroid"=black and caucasoid= white. The only fact you stated was sundadonty which you then get wrong by equating the dental complex with "negroids" when sundadonty is most distant to Africans! I suggest you read this article: A MAJOR DIVISION IN WORLDWIDE DENTAL PATTERNS AND THE PROGRESSIVE DECLINE OF SHOVELING.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

your definition of black is anybody dark skinned

---

Don't go back to your lying ways. My definition of 'black' is the standard dictionary one that most people around the world use. 'Dark' is a relative term so the question is how dark. I myself am dark skinned compared to a European like yourself but I'm never labeled as 'black'.

---

quote:

---

Calibrating human population dispersals across Earth’s surface is fundamental to assessing rates and timing of anthropogenic impacts and distinguishing ecological phenomena influenced by humans from those that were not. Here, we describe the Hartley mammoth locality, which dates to 38,900–36,250 cal BP by AMS 14C analysis of hydroxyproline from bone collagen. We accept the standard view that elaborate stone technology of the Eurasian Upper Paleolithic was introduced into the Americas by arrival of the Native American clade ∼16,000 cal BP. It follows that if older cultural sites exist in the Americas, they might only be diagnosed using nuanced taphonomic approaches. We employed computed tomography (CT and μCT) and other state-of-the-art methods that had not previously been applied to investigating ancient American sites. This revealed multiple lines of taphonomic evidence suggesting that two mammoths were butchered using expedient lithic and bone technology, along with evidence diagnostic of controlled (domestic) fire. That this may be an ancient cultural site is corroborated by independent genetic evidence of two founding populations for humans in the Americas, which has already raised the possibility of a dispersal into the Americas by people of East Asian ancestry that preceded the Native American clade by millennia. The Hartley mammoth locality thus provides a new deep point of chronologic reference for occupation of the Americas and the attainment by humans of a near-global distribution.

---

quote:

---

The skin color data and the DNA sequences led the researchers to identify a genetic variant for lighter skin that arose in Asia 20- to 30-thousand years ago. That event appears to be independent of the evolution of lighter skin in Europe.

What’s it all mean? Well, light skin color in Latin Americans could still reflect European ancestry. But it could also indicate Native American ancestry—by way of the original Asian immigrants carrying the trait who crossed the temporary Beringia land bridge into what’s now Alaska and became the first Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
A negro is a person with:

1) Direct African or Black Asian ancestry

2) Brown to yellow complexion

3) Long limbs

4) shape of the head and face varies

5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin

6) curly to straight hair

7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group

8) thick or thin lips

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mirror Opposite-Archeopteryx:
As of today European can be a geographic label, or it can be a political one.

One can also wonder about the light skinned North Africans. Are they not Africans? Or the black people of Britain, etc., who have lived there for generations, are they Africans and Indians or Europeans? If a black (African descended) or white (European descended) person in America is called an American (both are newcomers to the Americas), so why not call a black person in Europe for European too?

Afroasian can also mean different thing, it can simply mean people from Africa or Asia, sometimes it mostly refers to the light skinned Africans and Semitic speaking Asians, sometimes it is broader.

Often people from Asia today are called Asians and people from Africa is called Africans. There are of course also other designations as East Asians, South East Asians, South Asians, or North Africans, West Africans or Southern Africans. Or one can call people by the name of the nation or ethnicity they belong to.

The designation "white" is in much a political label. No people are literally white but more often different shades of pink.

Some people tend to lump together all people with a somewhat lighter skin tone under the label "white", everyone from Europeans to Australian colonizers, to so called "creoles". It is like lumping West Africans, Indo-Chinese and Melanesians together under the label "black".

Labels are always tricky, and they often cause confusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mirror Opposite-Archeopteryx:
As of today European can be a geographic label, or it can be a political one.

One can also wonder about the light skinned North Africans. Are they not Africans? Or the black people of Britain, etc., who have lived there for generations, are they Africans and Indians or Europeans? If a black (African descended) or white (European descended) person in America is called an American (both are newcomers to the Americas), so why not call a black person in Europe for European too?

Afroasian can also mean different thing, it can simply mean people from Africa or Asia, sometimes it mostly refers to the light skinned Africans and Semitic speaking Asians, sometimes it is broader.

Often people from Asia today are called Asians and people from Africa is called Africans. There are of course also other designations as East Asians, South East Asians, South Asians, or North Africans, West Africans or Southern Africans. Or one can call people by the name of the nation or ethnicity they belong to.

The designation "white" is in much a political label. No people are literally white but more often different shades of pink.

Some people tend to lump together all people with a somewhat lighter skin tone under the label "white", everyone from Europeans to Australian colonizers, to so called "creoles". It is like lumping West Africans, Indo-Chinese and Melanesians together under the label "black".

Labels are always tricky, and they often cause confusion.

---

---

Your silly semantic exercise does not refute what I wrote.

Also I seldom hear anyone here lumping together Europeans and East Asians as white, while I heard African Americans (and also some white Americans and some Europeans) all the time lumping together Australians, Melanesians, Africans and even Polynesians as "black" (which some Polynesians vividly protest against)
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
The aboriginal populations of Brazil shared many features in common with the aboriginal populations of Asia. It isn't hard to see this in native American populations. Ancient native Americans would have had more of an aboriginal look, just like most ancient populations of Asians would have also had a similar look, which is still found in South Asia and part of the Pacific. Northern Asians eventually became more cold adapted and therefore lost their darker pigmentation over time even though some still do retain it.

There are plenty of European sources describing the variation of features in native Americans and very few of them documented populations as pale as Europeans. Even though there are some native Americans who do look very much like lighter skinned populations from East Asia. But all of that is based on a common ancestry from Asia and adaptation over time in both Asia and the Americas.

Most of the "controversies" about how ancient Native Americans looked owe more to European interpretations such as Kennewick man or their attempts to say that the first Native Americans originated in Europe with the clovis culture.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33170655

https://insider.si.edu/2012/03/ice-age-mariners-from-europe-were-the-first-people-to-reach-north-america/
 

---

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

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/02/17/magazine/17anthropologist3.html

Napoleon-Chagnon with Yanomami tribesman, 1986

The Yanomami, also spelled Yąnomamö or Yanomama, are a group of approximately 35,000 indigenous people who live in some 200–250 villages in the Amazon rainforest on the border between Venezuela and Brazil.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Well the only reason why today's coastal North Africans are fair-skinned, even white is due to admixture especially from Europeans.

That said I don't want to divert from the topic any further and degenerate into another 'black vs. white'. We don't even know what color Population Y was but they were definitely of a darker hue.

Population Y was actually distinct from the ancestors of most Indigenous Americans. In fact, I prefer the phrase 'Basal East Asian' to describe them as they likely originated in East Asia where one branch went south and mixed with Andamanese, Papuans, and Aboriginal Australians. This comes to show just how diverse Eurasians were as I tried to explain here.

Just imagine how diverse Africans were considering they have even greater genetic diversity. Yet some take advantage of that and try to group some Africans into a "true negro" group segregated to Sub-Sahara. Anyway, these findings are revolutionizing our knowledge of human paleohistory.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Well the only reason why today's coastal North Africans are fair-skinned, even white is due to admixture especially from Europeans.

That said I don't want to divert from the topic any further and degenerate into another 'black vs. white'. We don't even know what color Population Y was but they were definitely of a darker hue.

Population Y was actually distinct from the ancestors of most Indigenous Americans. In fact, I prefer the phrase 'Basal East Asian' to describe them as they likely originated in East Asia where one branch went south and mixed with Andamanese, Papuans, and Aboriginal Australians. This comes to show just how diverse Eurasians were as I tried to explain here.

Just imagine how diverse Africans were considering they have even greater genetic diversity. Yet some take advantage of that and try to group some Africans into a "true negro" group segregated to Sub-Sahara. Anyway, these findings are revolutionizing our knowledge of human paleohistory.

---

Your basal east asian is what SOME afrocentricist mean by "black" they don't mean west african "negroes" literally. this is a matter of semantics
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
The oldest DNA we have from the Americas still group more with todays Native Americans than it does with any other people. And phenotypically they varied a lot, like some of the oldest samples from Mexico which varied between looking like todays Native Americans to, in some case, looking like Arctic (native) people, and in another case somewhat like Europeans.

The Lagoa Santa Brazilians actually had similarities to some native peoples still living in Brazil today who are not more dark skinned than most other Native Americans. And genetically they are also closer to todays Native Americans than to any other people (including Australians).

The oldest most well preserved ancient remains were those of the spirit Cave mummy. He had straight hair and were genetically related to todays natives. He seems also to have had an intermediate skin color when alive.

We do not have so many genomes from America that are well preserved enough to deduce skin color but among those that were possible to examine they were in concordance with the variation of modern Native Americans.

Old accounts can often be misleading since many of the earliest explorers had no good references concerning Native American peoples, so they often referred to peoples from the old world. Also sometimes the accounts are a bit contradictory.

Also we shall not forget that there still is a variation in for example skin color among Native Americans, some can be rather dark brown, and some are nearly as pale as Europeans.



A rather light skinned Native from Guyana. His people lived until relatively recently quite isolated


A young Maya woman. She reminds a bit about people on the ancient murals in Bonampak


A young Pomo woman from California painted by Grace Hudson in the early 20th century


An Awa man from Brazil.

About population Y. The genetic signal of that population is so vague that it seems that it got mixed into the ancestors of todays Native Americans already in Asia and carried over to America with some of them. There are no proof that a deviating (for example Australoid) population alone occupied America before the ancestors and relatives of todays native Americans. And there will be no proof unless we find actual remains of this Y-population.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
On a side note it seems that Asia is actually the continent where skin tones can vary most, from the very dark Jarawa, and other Andamanese islanders, to rather pale Chinese, Koreans and Japanese.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
At minimum, because these are some of the the oldest remains found in the Americas
people carrying Y DNA Haplogroup Q
and mtDNA D1, D4 and C1 go back to at least
10-13,000 years in the Americas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Phenotypically Australoids are synonymous with negro.

---

Again, any person not of Y DNA Q
or mtDNA D1, D4 or C1
is not related to these Paleoamericans although may have some similar looking features

Some modern American Indians do carry this DNA so they are ancestrally related and live in some of the same areas today

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
It's like you didn't pay attention to what David Reich said about Coon's fallacy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
David Reich is the Jordan Peterson of genetics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

Your basal east asian is what SOME afrocentricist mean by "black" they don't mean west african "negroes" literally. this is a matter of semantics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
It's like you didn't pay attention to what David Reich said about Coon's fallacy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
David Reich is the Jordan Peterson of genetics

---

So what did Reich say about Coon verbatim?

---

Not Coon I meant Sforza

 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 
.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

Your basal east asian is what SOME afrocentricist mean by "black" they don't mean west african "negroes" literally. this is a matter of semantics

---

And what is this claim based on? According to some Afrocentrics everybody from Ainu to Vikings were black. So unless you can provide some evidence I won't hold my breath.

---

quote:

---

Is it possible that a group of humans related to Australian Aborigines somehow made its way into South America before Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait and entered the New World over 13,000 years ago? In other words, were the First Americans actually the Second Americans?

Believe it or not, that is the scenario that has emerged from several studies over the past three years … or at least, it’s one of a couple scenarios that have been suggested. Researchers have dubbed this mystery group “Population Y” after the word ypykuera, which means ancestor in a Brazilian language called Tupi.

---

https://www.jonnesgenealogy.com/the-mystery-of-population-y/

Why would it be shocking that populations related to Australian Aborigines went on to settle East Asia? Like seriously? What other populations of humans would there be in Asia OTHER than those related to Australian Aborigines? Also, keep in mind those populations did not look exactly like Australian Aborigines who look the way they look due to isolation and inbreeding. This idea that the first East Asians would have been separate and different from the first Asians everywhere else over 30,000 years ago is the problem. All of them at that time would have looked very similar as a form of global aboriginal population. The differentiation in populations cross regions and continents would not have occurred yet. And those aboriginal features would have persisted even to more recent times. And since all humans originated in Africa obviously that means that the further you go back the more humans converge on an Africoid phenotype.

And yes, there are people who have a problem with this in and outside of the academic community.
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 
0:11 / 1:55


#aboriginal #indiginous #BLM
What do Aboriginal People Think of Black Africans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYPPd85mSRw



 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Pale skin seems to have started evolving in Asia sometimes after the split between Asians and Europeans around 40 000 years ago. We do not know for sure which skin color the first native Americans had, but the ones we find DNA and mummies from around 10 500 years ago seems to have evolved an intermediate skin tone.

We have still to find DNA that is older than about 13 000 years old. If it is enough well preserved we will perhaps be able to deduce skin color too.

Pale skin seems to have evolved as an answer to environmental conditions like the amount of UV-radiation.

quote:

---

This study identifies five new associated regions involving skin, eye and hair colour. Genes affecting skin colour in Europeans have been extensively studied, but here researchers identified an important variation in the gene MFSD12 seen uniquely in East Asians and Native Americans.

They show it was under natural selection in East Asians after they split from Europeans around 40,000 years ago, and was then carried over to America by ancient migrations of Native Americans. It is the first time this gene has been linked to skin colour in Native Americans and East Asians.

Dr Kaustubh Adhikari (UCL Genetics Institute), said: "Our work demonstrates that lighter skin colour evolved independently in Europe and East Asia. We also show that this gene was under strong natural selection in East Asia, possibly as adaptation to changes in sunlight levels and ultraviolet radiation."

---

Genetic study provides novel insights into the evolution of skin color
Science Daily, 2019
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Most of the people who are acting like this is something ground breaking or novel haven't actually studied any native American populations across the continent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zog_zya3NvE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2pmZB26k7M

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/photos/wayana?assettype=image&phrase=wayana&sort=mostpopular&license=rf%2Crm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Td8VUcKk0
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
We need more ancient DNA from the oldest samples of Native Americans to know what skin color, what kind of hair and similar they had. What we know so far is that there could be a certain morphological variation among the earliest skeletons that are found. Thus in Mexico we find skeletons that remind some of Europeans, arctic natives and of todays Native Americans. In Brazil the Lagoa Santa people had skull forms that had some resemblance to Australians, but also of peoples which still live in todays Brazil. Those ancient remains which have been DNA tested are all nested within past and present Native American genetic diversity.

Among the oldest DNA tested individuals so far is Naia from Mexico (12000 years), the Spirit Cave mummy (more than 10000 years old) from Nevada in USA and some of the Lagoa Santa individuals (about 10 to 11000 years old) from Brazil. We also have around 13000 years old eDNA from Paisley caves in Oregon. All these samples yielded DNA that still exist among Native Americans.

So despite a certain variation in looks they were all more related to todays Native Americans than to any other peoples in the world.

For the oldest traces of humans in the Americas, like the White Sands footprints New Mexico which are dated to between 21000-23000 years old, we still have no DNA.

The oldest skeleton so far is Eve of Naharon in Mexico which is dated to about 13600 years old. Her DNA has not been sequenced.



Reconstruction of the famous Luzia, from Lagoa Santa in Brazil, compared with a woman from the Yanomami people from Brazil.


Interesting diversity among early skulls found in Mexico

Morphological variation of the early human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico: Contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas
Plos One 2020
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227444
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Europeans have no monopoly on white complexions.

When Europeans in their colonial age invented anthropology they never bothered asking input from the colonized ie non-European peoples they colour assigned to anything but white.


=-=-=-=


From http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008446;p=3#000127






None of them are white according to Euro arrogance.

Europeans have claimed exclusive
rights to white and enforce it in
their academic institutions and all
attending imbibe and regurgitate that
Eurocentrism (or receive failing grades
in anthropology/sociology) but before
Euro dominance such was not the case.

quote:

---

why are Asians yellow? When I look at my skin, it doesn’t look yellow to me. If anything, it looks olive and if I’ve been in the sun at all, it’s brown. So if I’m not yellow-skinned, where does that idea come from?
...

Apparently, we can blame a German professor from the
19th century. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840).

In the years since good old Professor Blumenbach, the idea of Asians as yellow has been ingrained in our heads.

---

East Asian girls of white complexion
like to hear it. I personally know
Chinese in Indonesian go by "white
Chinese." I've never heard any East
Asian describe themself as yellow.
That's why yellow has no parlance
today considered a tad pejorative.

The Chinese classic Chin P'ing Mei
by Wang Shih-cheng is profuse in
adulation of white legged, white
buttocked, ivory white legged,
dazzling-white legged, and dazzling
white necked Chinese women and girls.

Leaving Euro predicated skin colour
wording to Euros of course these
females are white. Xyyman posted
a scientific colour chart supporting
northeast Asians as whiter than Euros.

White ≠ only European, unless one bows down
to Simon and acquiesces to play Simon Says.
Colour may or may not reveal close genetic
or biological relation.


=-=-=-=-=


The referenced book is now available via Internet Archive. Here's a search on white in the pages of this late 1600s Chinese classic.

https://archive.org/details/ChinPingMei/The%20Golden%20Lotus/page/n451/mode/2up?q=white

The book makes no race colour identities but lauds the complexion of desirable women. Make no mistake milk white breasts means what it says.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yeah, still the idea of "yellow" Asians persists in western culture. We have all heard expressions like "yellow fever" about western men who are fond of Asian women.

Here in Sweden there was recently a lot of debate about the print on a special kind of candy, with a stereotypical yellow figure. The company has since removed the logo.



---

In many Asian countries there is still today a preference for white skin, also among people who are naturally more brown than white (as in Thailand or Philippines).

Where Does the Asian Obsession With White Skin Come From? There are no signs that this deep-rooted trend is subsiding, despite recent media attention.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/where-does-the-asian-obsession-with-white-skin-come-from/
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Europeans have no monopoly on white complexions.

When Europeans in their colonial age invented anthropology they never bothered asking input from the colonized ie non-European peoples they colour assigned to anything but white.


=-=-=-=


From http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=008446;p=3#000127






None of them are white according to Euro arrogance.

Europeans have claimed exclusive
rights to white and enforce it in
their academic institutions and all
attending imbibe and regurgitate that
Eurocentrism (or receive failing grades
in anthropology/sociology) but before
Euro dominance such was not the case.

quote:

---

why are Asians yellow? When I look at my skin, it doesn’t look yellow to me. If anything, it looks olive and if I’ve been in the sun at all, it’s brown. So if I’m not yellow-skinned, where does that idea come from?
...

Apparently, we can blame a German professor from the
19th century. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840).

In the years since good old Professor Blumenbach, the idea of Asians as yellow has been ingrained in our heads.

---

East Asian girls of white complexion
like to hear it. I personally know
Chinese in Indonesian go by "white
Chinese." I've never heard any East
Asian describe themself as yellow.
That's why yellow has no parlance
today considered a tad pejorative.

The Chinese classic Chin P'ing Mei
by Wang Shih-cheng is profuse in
adulation of white legged, white
buttocked, ivory white legged,
dazzling-white legged, and dazzling
white necked Chinese women and girls.

Leaving Euro predicated skin colour
wording to Euros of course these
females are white. Xyyman posted
a scientific colour chart supporting
northeast Asians as whiter than Euros.

White ≠ only European, unless one bows down
to Simon and acquiesces to play Simon Says.
Colour may or may not reveal close genetic
or biological relation.


=-=-=-=-=


The referenced book is now available via Internet Archive. Here's a search on white in the pages of this late 1600s Chinese classic.

https://archive.org/details/ChinPingMei/The%20Golden%20Lotus/page/n451/mode/2up?q=white

The book makes no race colour identities but lauds the complexion of desirable women. Make no mistake milk white breasts means what it says.

---

quote:

---

#MagandangMorenx, literally translated to “beautiful brown skin”, is a movement dedicated to challenging the traditionally enforced beauty standards within mainstream Filipino media and combating colorism within the culture. From whitening creams to an entertainment industry saturated with mestizas, the legacy of the 333 Spanish colonization of the Philippines can still be felt in this worship and desire for white skin.

Tan and brown-skinned Filipinos are made to feel insecure, ashamed, and embarrassed of the natural color of their skin despite being indigenous to a cluster of tropical islands in the southeast Pacific, where the geography and climate make brown skin the norm.

#MagandangMorenx was created in 2016 to empower, reclaim, & redefine what it means to be a Filipino & celebrate our diversity of color.

---

quote:

---

Doug M posted:

... the "white" complexion of women was often enhanced with face paint.

---

quote:

---

it was a beautiful and seductive woman. Behold, she has: Glossy, black, raven’s feather tresses;
Dark, curved, new moon eyebrows;
Clear, cold, almond eyes;
Redolently fragrant cherry lips;
A straight, full, alabaster nose;
Thickly powdered red cheeks;
A handsome, silver salver face;
A light, lissome, flowerlike figure;
Slender, jade-white, scallion-shoot fingers;
A cuddlesome, willow waist;
A tender, pouting, dough-white tummy;
Tiny, turned-up, pointed feet;
Buxom breasts; and Fresh, white legs.

---

.

I hope I clarified use of body skin color in Chinese
lit of the same century as Shakespeare. And to expand
further I offer this face complexion chart from

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009678;p=1#000027

EDIT: [ Note Lucy Liu's Asian complexion reps the European midrange. Darker than Emma Stone, lighter than Sandra Bullock. ]



Then of course the ES archive has/had quite a few threads
on the non-northeast or Jungle Asians as Ali Wong puts it.
They are/were chock full of research and imgs posted by
Doug M.


Japan, Korea, and northeast China span the same latitude
as France and Spain. The lands with Asian blacks is the
same latitude as Sahel and Sahra Africa. Intesting are
those Tibetans and Mongolians with brown/grey-brown skin.
But then like the blue/purple black skinned Andamanese
I think all three peoples males are nry D (split from DE).

Will dig up an independent Pacific Asian authored genetics
article and post here later maybe.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

quote:

---

Doug M posted:

... the "white" complexion of women was often enhanced with face paint.

---

.
Very true as whiteness was seen as a beauty plus.
I'm sure even the women in Shih-cheng's works with
naturally milk-white breasts or white legs or
white buttocks applied white cosmetic to their
faces making them an unnatural powdery white.

Shih-cheng's books apply yellow complexion to
death or illness. Being complexion descriptors,
not racial designations, neither of the colors
white nor yellow appear within quotation marks
in the literature.

I hope I clarified use of body skin color in Chinese
lit of the same century as Shakespeare. And to expand
further I offer this face complexion chart from

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009678;p=1#000027

---

• 
  Genetic legacy of the Paleolithic black Asians
  [ section of https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-2223-4-11 ]
  
  The migration history of haplogroup D-M174 is most
  mysterious. By now, we have known little about the
  origin and dispersal of this haplogroup. This haplo-
  group was derived from African haplogroup DE-M1
  (YAP insertion) and is associated with a short black
  Asian physical style. Haplogroups E and D are brother
  haplogroups. While haplogroup E was carried westwards
  to Africa by the tall black people, haplogroup D might
  have been carried eastwards to East Asia by the short
  black people (Figure 3). Haplogroup D-M174 has high
  frequencies in the Andaman Negritos, the northern
  Tibeto-Burman populations and the Ainu of Japan,
  and also appears at low frequencies in other East
  and Southeast Asian and Central Asian populations.
  [...]
  The paragroup D* is restricted to the Andaman Islands,
  which has been isolated for at least 20 thousand years.
  Some other minor haplogroups, also included in D*, can
  be found around Tibet. Most of the populations with
  haplogroup D have very dark skin color, including the
  Andamanese, some of the Tibeto-Burman and Mon-Khmer
  people. The Ainu people may have developed pale skin to
  absorb more ultraviolet light in high latitude regions.
  
  
  

quote:

---

In less than a decade, analyses of ancient genomes have transformed our understanding of the Indigenous peopling and population history of the Americas. These studies have shown that this history, which began in the late Pleistocene epoch and continued episodically into the Holocene epoch, was far more complex than previously thought. It is now evident that the initial dispersal involved the movement from northeast Asia of distinct and previously unknown populations, including some for whom there are no currently known descendants. The first peoples, once south of the continental ice sheets, spread widely, expanded rapidly and branched into multiple populations. Their descendants—over the next fifteen millennia—experienced varying degrees of isolation, admixture, continuity and replacement, and their genomes help to illuminate the relationships among major subgroups of Native American populations. Notably, all ancient individuals in the Americas, save for later-arriving Arctic peoples, are more closely related to contemporary Indigenous American individuals than to any other population elsewhere, which challenges the claim—which is based on anatomical evidence—that there was an early, non-Native American population in the Americas. Here we review the patterns revealed by ancient genomics that help to shed light on the past peoples who created the archaeological landscape, and together lead to deeper insights into the population and cultural history of the Americas.

---

quote:

---

In 2015, scientists discovered something surprising: that some Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon were distantly—but distinctly—related to native Australians and Melanesians. The genetic signal of Australasian ancestry in so far-flung a population sent researchers scrambling for answers. A new study reveals this genetic signal is more prevalent throughout South America than thought and suggests the people who first carried these genes into the New World got it from an ancestral Siberian population.

The finding also sheds light on those people's migration routes to South America. "It's a really nice piece of work," says Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, who wasn't involved in the study. It shows that the 2015 finding "wasn't just an artifact. It really is a widespread genetic signal."

Anthropologists think bands of hardy hunter-gatherers left Siberia and entered the now-submerged land of Beringia, which then connected Eurasia and Alaska, when sea levels were much lower than today—perhaps about 20,000 years ago. Then, about 15,000 years or so ago, some departed Beringia and fanned out into North and South America. These early migrants made good time: By 14,800 years ago at the latest, radiocarbon dates suggest they were setting up camp in Monte Verde in southern Chile.

The 2015 DNA studies revealed Australasian ancestry in two Indigenous Amazonian groups, the Karitiana and Suruí, based on the DNA of more than 200 living and ancient people. Many bore a signature set of genetic mutations, named the "Y signal" after the Brazilian Tupi word for "ancestor," ypikuéra. Some scientists speculated the Y signal was already present in some of the earliest South American migrants. Others suggested a later migration of people related to present-day Australasians could have introduced the Y signal into people already living in the Amazon.

---

https://www.science.org/content/article/earliest-south-american-migrants-had-australian-melanesian-ancestry

And again much of this goes back to how those ancient groups of East Asians were related to the first aboriginal settlers of Asia, which again is not exactly the same as modern Australian Aborigines.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
"Yellow" does not persist in America

East Asians and American Indians have rejected
being identified as a color and you will never hear Asians on the news referred to on the news
as yellows or American Indians as red skins
although you can find such references in earlier periods


this is not do say in historical writing skin color is never referenced "white skin" etc

but when it's decided to adopted terms like "White people" and "Black people" the word "skin" is left out and the word takes on connotations beyond skin

In that form they become primary identifiers and recorded on the census of certain countries

African Americans have largely rejected the term African Americans and instead have said to European Americans who had adopted "White" in effect, yes we accept your color system, we will be Black as you are White but realize now we are forced to compete with you and we will

This may go on forever

Or it could be a stage
"Black" is to an extent a reaction to "White" but as such is an acceptance of the paradigm
color

but what if instead "White" and "Black" were done away with?
One day it could happen
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
The main reason I like ADMIXTURE itself, compared
to the rest of that package is, it's straight forward.

It's based on a broad swathe of DNA, far more than
2 bi-parentals or the up to 21 STaRs of autosomes.

You can interpret a worldwide sample set by noting
K2 run as the Continental and Out of Africa divisions (roughly)
K3 run as the old tri-racial model to some extent
K5 run as the updated 5 race model
K7 run as the 7 continental regions

Higher K runs then show regional or 'ethno-linguistic' substructure.

I've been on an ADMIXTURE trail of Americans. Those we call Indians aren't the only Americans
nor do Indians claim shared origins with those others. My interest is Indians ancestries and
percentages in various peoples.

For me that helps see American ancestries start/spread throughout both continents and Meso-America. Here, have
a sneak peek at my Nakatsuka 2020's SF2 aDNA only redux. Unlike any before, this one is sorted strictly by time.
Three major southern continent lineages go back to the early Holocene 12,000 years ago, and are all over that continent.

click to zoom


IBS shows insignificant (≤3%) Indian
admixture. This supports history saying Indios
in miniscule numbers were sent to Spain since
Colon's mission.

Moreno-Mayar 2018 (Willerslev Labs) F2 K=16



Wait, does Willerslev Labs S17 show African ancestry in Americans or am I colorblind!
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

We need more ancient DNA from the oldest samples of Native Americans to know what skin color, what kind of hair and similar they had. What we know so far is that there could be a certain morphological variation among the earliest skeletons that are found. Thus in Mexico we find skeletons that remind some of Europeans, arctic natives and of todays Native Americans. In Brazil the Lagoa Santa people had skull forms that had some resemblance to Australians, but also of peoples which still live in todays Brazil. Those ancient remains which have been DNA tested are all nested within past and present Native American genetic diversity.

Among the oldest DNA tested individuals so far is Naia from Mexico (12000 years), the Spirit Cave mummy (more than 10000 years old) from Nevada in USA and some of the Lagoa Santa individuals (about 10 to 11000 years old) from Brazil. We also have around 13000 years old eDNA from Paisley caves in Oregon. All these samples yielded DNA that still exist among Native Americans.

So despite a certain variation in looks they were all more related to todays Native Americans than to any other peoples in the world.

For the oldest traces of humans in the Americas, like the White Sands footprints New Mexico which are dated to between 21000-23000 years old, we still have no DNA.

The oldest skeleton so far is Eve of Naharon in Mexico which is dated to about 13600 years old. Her DNA has not been sequenced.



Reconstruction of the famous Luzia, from Lagoa Santa in Brazil, compared with a woman from the Yanomami people from Brazil.


Interesting diversity among early skulls found in Mexico

Morphological variation of the early human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico: Contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas
Plos One 2020
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227444

---

Yep, all of this was covered before in other threads.

From Neves & Hubbe's 2005 study of Lagoa Santa skulls

Abstract
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; prognathic, 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 South American 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.

We even have evidence from dental morphology.

From Sutter's 2009 study of odontic features of early Americans


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Here and there counter movements to the white obsession are emerging. One such movement is MagandangMorenx in the Philippines. The future will show what impact such initiatives can have.

quote:

---

#MagandangMorenx, literally translated to “beautiful brown skin”, is a movement dedicated to challenging the traditionally enforced beauty standards within mainstream Filipino media and combating colorism within the culture. From whitening creams to an entertainment industry saturated with mestizas, the legacy of the 333 Spanish colonization of the Philippines can still be felt in this worship and desire for white skin.

Tan and brown-skinned Filipinos are made to feel insecure, ashamed, and embarrassed of the natural color of their skin despite being indigenous to a cluster of tropical islands in the southeast Pacific, where the geography and climate make brown skin the norm.

#MagandangMorenx was created in 2016 to empower, reclaim, & redefine what it means to be a Filipino & celebrate our diversity of color.

---

Magandang Morenx

---

Yeah, I've heard of this. I think a lot of this fair skin obsession has to do with Western colonialism and the favoring of the elite 'mestiza' look. You'd be surprised at how many skin lightening centers they have in the Philippines as well as the number of ads for skin lightening. I remember years ago when I visited, I was shocked to see a commercial where a couple was disappointed and upset that that the wife in the hospital after giving birth realized their newborn was dark-skinned! WTF

So I really hope this countermovement is here to stay. Though what's with the x in Morenx?? That sounds an awful lot like that Latinx nonsense we have here in America.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

We need more ancient DNA from the oldest samples of Native Americans to know what skin color, what kind of hair and similar they had. What we know so far is that there could be a certain morphological variation among the earliest skeletons that are found. Thus in Mexico we find skeletons that remind some of Europeans, arctic natives and of todays Native Americans. In Brazil the Lagoa Santa people had skull forms that had some resemblance to Australians, but also of peoples which still live in todays Brazil. Those ancient remains which have been DNA tested are all nested within past and present Native American genetic diversity.

Among the oldest DNA tested individuals so far is Naia from Mexico (12000 years), the Spirit Cave mummy (more than 10000 years old) from Nevada in USA and some of the Lagoa Santa individuals (about 10 to 11000 years old) from Brazil. We also have around 13000 years old eDNA from Paisley caves in Oregon. All these samples yielded DNA that still exist among Native Americans.

So despite a certain variation in looks they were all more related to todays Native Americans than to any other peoples in the world.

For the oldest traces of humans in the Americas, like the White Sands footprints New Mexico which are dated to between 21000-23000 years old, we still have no DNA.

The oldest skeleton so far is Eve of Naharon in Mexico which is dated to about 13600 years old. Her DNA has not been sequenced.



Reconstruction of the famous Luzia, from Lagoa Santa in Brazil, compared with a woman from the Yanomami people from Brazil.


Interesting diversity among early skulls found in Mexico

Morphological variation of the early human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico: Contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas
Plos One 2020
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227444

---

Yep, all of this was covered before in other threads.

From Neves & Hubbe's 2005 study of Lagoa Santa skulls

Abstract
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; prognathic, 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 South American 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.

We even have evidence from dental morphology.

From Sutter's 2009 study of odontic features of early Americans

---

Anyone know if the Population Y signal has been found in the ancestry of these "Australoid"-looking Native samples? I recall the claim that people like Luzia would have been "genetically Amerindian" despite their different morphology.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Seems that the DNA data from those Lagoa Santa remains that have been sequenced still show that they were as they put it "entirely nested within past and present Native American genetic diversity".
Even Neves himself are now writing about it





The Archaeological Record of Lagoa Santa (East-Central Brazil): From the Late Pleistocene to Historical Times
2020
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-35940-9_12

So it seems that the Lagoa Santa after all is more related with todays Native Americans than with any other people (including Australians/Melanesians). It seems that morphology and DNA are not always fully compatible. So far all ancient DNA still points to a common heritage between different Native groups even if the morphology can be rather shifting.

It seems that it was maybe a rather heterogenos people (morphologically) that immigrated to the new continent(s).

quote:

---

Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly Adrican features attributed to Luzia were wrong (Images André Strauss and Caroline Wilkinsson)

---

quote:

---

Lagoa Santa remains from a site nearby to the Luzia remains carry DNA regarded as Native American. Two of the Lagoa Santa individuals carry the same mtDNA haplogroup (D4h3a) also carried by older 12,000+ remains Anzick-1 found in Montana, mtDNA haplogroup A2, B2, C1d1 and three of the Lagoa Santa individuals harbor the same Y chromosome haplogroup Q1b1a1a1-M848 as found in the Spirit Cave genome of Nevada

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Note, no DNA was obtainable from the 11,500-year-old Luzia woman skull, only Lagoa Santa remains from a site nearby, remains dated 10,000-9,000 years ago
1,500+ year difference

---

quote:

---

This article is more than 3 years old
Scientists reveal 10,000-year-old mummy is Native American ancestor

---

quote:

---

DNA painstakingly extracted from the ancient skull proved the skeleton was an ancestor of the tribe and discredited a longstanding theory that the individual was from a group of “Paleoamericans” that existed in North America before Native Americans.

The full genetic details of the skeleton, which is the world’s oldest natural mummy, are published as part of a wide-ranging international study of the ancestry of North and South America. The project also found evidence of two previously unknown migrations into South America and revealed surprising traces of Australasian ancestry in indigenous South Americans that hint at a far earlier arrival of modern humans to the Americas – potentially dating back 30,000 years or more.

Prof Eske Willerslev, who led the sequencing of the Spirit Cave Mummy and helped interpret genetic data from dozens of ancient specimens spanning about 10,000 years and locations from Alaska to Patagonia, said the findings highlighted the “power of ancient DNA” to reveal untold stories of the distant past.

---

quote:

---

South America was the last major continent to be colonized by modern humans (1, 2), yet it has unusually high among-population cranial differentiation relative to other global continents (3–9). This seems counterintuitive, given that within-group neutral genetic and craniometric diversity decreases with distance from sub-Saharan Africa, due to serial founder effects as humans dispersed out of Africa (10–13). However, populations can exhibit low within-group variation yet still show high between-group differentiation due to population isolation (reduced gene flow) and pervasive genetic drift, which is likely to be the case in South America (4). High levels of among-population differentiation in the Americas have also been noted for linguistic (14) and neutral genetic data (15). Whereas a concordant larger-than-expected cranial diversity is observable among late Holocene “Amerindian” populations (6, 8, 16), among-group differentiation is further exaggerated by the distinct cranial morphology of early “Paleoamerican” crania compared to the morphology of contemporary Native Americans (17–24), which has generated a long-standing debate about the origin of morphological diversity in the continent (17, 19, 20, 25).

Debates regarding the cause of this high between-group differentiation have centered on two main competing hypotheses. One possibility is that the observed diversity in South America is the result of in situ processes during the Holocene, whereby high within-group variation among early Americans became subdivided among descendent populations due to the rapid colonization of the Americas and/or as a result of genetic drift or natural selection acting in small isolated populations (5, 8, 25–27). Variants of this model emphasize the importance of recurrent gene flow between Asia and the Americas following the initial colonization of the continent (17). However, whereas among-group cranial differentiation in South America is extraordinarily high, within-group variation for early Paleoamerican samples is not excessive and is within the range expressed by contemporary global populations (4). This finding argues against the notion that the earliest migrants into the Americas were the source of all subsequent among-group biological diversity. The other main hypothesis proposed is that the observed cranial diversity is the result of multiple waves of dispersion into the Americas from northeast Asia over the course of several thousand years, with each wave of migrants introducing new sources of biological diversity. This argument is largely based on the empirical observation that the average cranial shape of the earliest South Americans bears stronger affinities with Australasian and Polynesian populations than it does with East Asian or later Native American groups (20, 24, 26). Recently, Hubbe et al. (18) suggested that early Paleoamerican groups retain the generalized ancestral morphology that characterized late Pleistocene Eurasian populations, as represented by fossils such as the Upper Cave specimen from Zhoukoudian (China) and Upper Paleolithic European specimens. If this ancestral morphology is also shared with contemporary Oceanic populations, then this would explain the apparent connection between Australasia and South America, despite their large geographic separation. Under such a scenario, subsequent population differentiation occurred in Asia following the initial settlement of the Americas, with later migrants into the New World resembling the derived “East Asian” morphology more closely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Though what's with the x in Morenx?? That sounds an awful lot like that Latinx nonsense we have here in America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] A lot of this confusion about population Y and other native American populations is weird. Why would anyone assume that native Americans are not descended from ancient migrants from Asia over 10 or 20 thousand years ago and why is there a need to distinguish between "paleo" and more recent native Americans. It really doesn't make sense if you think about it and likely reflects over emphasizing conclusions based on limited data. Native Americans were always diverse and never a monolithic population to begin with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Sometimes I get the impression that some people only are interested in ancient Native American peoples or cultures if they believe they were "black" (or in some cases "white"). Non black Native Americans seem not to count.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Yep, all of this was covered before in other threads.

From Neves & Hubbe's 2005 study of Lagoa Santa skulls

Abstract
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; prognathic, 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 South American 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.

We even have evidence from dental morphology.

From Sutter's 2009 study of odontic features of early Americans

---

quote:

---

In agreement with previous results, we found that the Amazonian Suruí share a larger proportion of alleles with Australasian groups (represented by Papuans, Australians, and Andaman Islanders) than do the Mixe. Lagoa Santa yielded results similar to those obtained for the Suruí: The analyzed Lagoa Santa genome also shares a larger proportion of alleles with Australasian groups, but not with other Eurasians, than do Mesoamerican groups (the Mixe and Huichol). However, the Australasian signal is not present in the Spirit Cave individual, and we include this distinction in the admixture graph modeling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

It is curious that the signal seems to be prominent only in the genomes of South American Natives, especially those east of the Andes. What could explain that?

---

Perhaps the Andes acted as somewhat of a barrier which did not stop but at least impended the complete genomic replacement of the Paleoindians.

It's perhaps similar to how the most common Y lineage in Australian Aborigines (C4-M347) is found only in Australia and nowhere else not even Papua New Guinea. Certain regions served as refugia for certain populations. Another example would be EEF genomes in isolated islands in Britain like the Orkney Islands.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
References edited for non-technical readers. See them @ www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674 (18) 31380-1 [copy to URL window and remove the spaces]


Cosimo Posth, Nathan Nakatsuka, Iosif Lazaridis, Johannes Krause, David Reich, et al (2018)
Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America


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




Long-Standing Population Continuity in Multiple Regions of South America

The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people.
For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Core individuals.

In Belize, individuals from Mayahak Cab Pek and Saki Tzul dating to ∼9,300 and ∼7,400 BP do not share significantly more alleles with present-day people from the region near Belize than they do with present-day groups elsewhere in Central and South America.

In Brazil, genetic data from sites dating to ∼9,600 BP (Lapa do Santo) and ∼6,700 BP (Laranjal) show no distinctive shared ancestry with present-day Brazilians (Figures 2 and S1; Table S1), although the Laranjal individuals do show potential evidence of shared ancestry with a ∼5,800 BP individual from Moraes (Table S4), confirmed by the statistic f4(Mbuti, Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP; Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Brazil_Moraes_5800BP), which is Z = 7.7 standard errors from zero.


We detect long-standing continuity between ancient and present-day Native Americans in each of the regions of South America we analyzed beginning at least ∼5,800 BP, a pattern that is evident in heatmaps, neighbor-joining trees, and multi-dimensional scaling plots computed on outgroup-f3 statistics (Figures 2, S1, and S2; Table S1).

In Peru, the most ancient individuals dating up to ∼9,000 BP from Cuncaicha and Lauricocha share alleles at the highest rate with present-day indigenous groups living in the Central Andes (Lindo et al., 2018, Llamas et al., 2016).

Individuals dating up to ∼8,600 BP from Arroyo Seco 2 and Laguna Chica also show the strongest allele sharing with some present-day indigenous people in the Southern Core.

In Brazil, the evidence of continuity with present-day indigenous people begins with the Moraes individual at ∼5,800 BP. A striking pattern of continuity with present-day people is also observed in the ∼2,000 BP Jabuticabeira 2 individuals who were part of the Sambaqui shell-mound building tradition that was spread along the south Brazilian coast from around 8,000–1,000 BP. The Jabuticabeira 2 individuals share significantly more alleles with some Ge-speaking groups than they do with some Tupi-Guarani speaking groups who have been predominant on the coast during the post-Colonial period (Figure S3; Table S1). This supports the theory of shared ancestry between the makers of the Sambaqui culture and the speakers of proto-Ge who are hypothesized to have lived in the region ∼2,000 BP (Iriarte et al., 2017). These findings also support the theory of coastal replacement of Ge speakers by Tupi-Guarani speakers after ∼1,000 BP (Hubbe et al., 2009) (STAR Methods).
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Evidence for at Least Four Genetic Exchanges between South America and Other Regions

Figure 1 plots the excess rate of allele sharing of ancient Central and South Americans with
the ∼12,800 BP Anzick-1 individual from Montana compared to the ∼11,500 BP USR1 individual from Alaska,
an Ancient Beringian who derives from a lineage that split from the one leading to all other known Native Americans before they separated from each other (Moreno-Mayar et al., 2018a) (Table S4).

The distribution of this statistic f4(Mbuti, Test; USR1, Anzick-1) confirms previous findings that
Anzick-1 relatedness is greatest in Central and South Americans
and lowest in North American groups (Table S4) (Rasmussen et al., 2014),
with the exception of the California Channel Islands,
where the earliest individuals from San Nicolas Island around 4,900 BP show some of the highest Anzick-1 relatedness,
consistent with an early spread of Anzick-1-related people to these islands followed by local isolation (Scheib et al., 2018) (Figure S2D).

More careful examination reveals significant ancestry variability in the ancient South Americans.
The ∼10,900 BP Los Rieles individual from Chile,
the ∼9,600 BP individuals from Lapa do Santo in Brazil,
and individuals from southern Peru and northern Chile dating to ∼4,200 BP
and later (“Late Central Andes” from Cuncaicha, Laramate and Pica Ocho),
share more alleles with Anzick-1 than do other South Americans.

Many of these signals of asymmetrical relationship to Anzick-1 are significant
as assessed by statistics of the form f4(Mbuti, Anzick-1; Test1, Test2):
Z score for deviation from zero as high as
3.4 for the (Test1, Test2) pair (Early Andes, Chile_LosRieles_10900BP),
3.1 for the pair (Early Andes, Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP), and
3.0 for the pair (Early Andes, Late Central Andes) (Table S2).

We confirmed these findings using qpWave,
which evaluates the minimum number of sources of ancestry that must have contributed to a test set of groups relative to a set of outgroups.
We tested all possible pairs of populations and found that none of the three combinations are consistent with being derived from a homogeneous ancestral population:
p = 0.0023 for (Early Andes, Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP),
p = 0.0007 for (Early Andes, Late Central Andes), and
p = 0.0000004 for (Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Late Central Andes).

We obtained qualitatively similar results replacing Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP with Chile_LosRieles_10900BP.
We also obtained similar results for subsets of individuals in each group.
Our power to reject models of just two sources of ancestry for the ancient South American individuals depends critically on the use of Anzick-1 as an outgroup, as when we remove this individual from the outgroup set there is no evidence of a third source of ancestry contributing to Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP (p = 0.11) or Chile_LosRieles_10900BP (p = 0.35). It also depends critically on the use of California Channel Islands individuals, as when we remove them as outgroups there is no evidence for a third source of ancestry contributing to Late Central Andes groups (p = 0.12).
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Modeling the Deep History of Central and South America

[ . . . ]


To fit the Anzick-1 genome associated with the Clovis culture into the admixture graph, we needed to specify additional admixture events.
We identified a range of fits for the data. Figure 4 shows the result of manually exploring models guided by common sense principles (geography, time, and archaeology) as well as the genetic data. Figure 5 shows a model obtained by a semi-automated procedure constrained only by the fit to the genetic data.


We highlight four points of agreement between the two admixture graphs.
First, both graphs imply a minimum of four genetic exchanges between South America and regions outside South America
consistent with the qpWave results in the previous section. This includes:
(1) a primary source of ANC-A ancestry in all South Americans;
(2) an ANC-A lineage with distinct affinity to Anzick-1 in
Chile_LosRieles_10900BP,
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, and some early Southern Cone populations; and
(3) ANC-A ancestry with a distinctive affinity to ancient individuals from the California Channel Islands (USA_SanNicolas_4900BP)
present in the Central Andes by ∼4,200 BP.
(4) The final spread of ancestry contributes to present-day Amazonian groups like the Surui.
In Figures 4 and 5, we do not include the Surui but do show such models in Figures S5G–S5I
where Surui can only be fit by proposing some ancestry differently related to Eurasians
than is the case for other Native Americans (as expected if there is Population Y ancestry in the Surui).

Second, both graphs specify minimal ANC-B ancestry in South Americans.
While we do find significant allele sharing with a representative ANC-B population (Canada_Lucier_4800BP-500BP)
in people from the Central Andes after ∼4,200 years ago—as reflected in significantly positive (2 < Z < 4) statistics
of the form f4(Mbuti, Canada_Lucier_4800BP-500BP; Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP or Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP, Late Central Andes or present-day Aymara and Quechua from Peru)
—when we fit admixture graph models specifying an ANC-B contribution to Late Central Andes groups, the ANC-B proportion is never more than 2% (Figures S5D–S5F).

Third, both graphs infer little genetic drift separating the lineages leading to the different ancient groups in each major region of South America.
This can be seen in our inferred five-way split whose order we cannot resolve involving lineages leading to:
(1) the early Belizeans,
(2) early Peruvians,
(3) early Southern Cone populations,
(4) the main lineage leading to Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, and
(5) the lineage leading to Chile_LosRieles_10900BP (Figure S5A).
This suggests rapid human radiation of the main lineage ancestral to later South Americans (Raghavan et al., 2015, Reich et al., 2012).

Fourth, both graphs agree that there is distinctive shared ancestry between
the Clovis culture associated Anzick-1 and the earliest South American individuals from
Lapa do Santo in Brazil and
Los Rieles in Chile.

We also detect evidence of ancestry related to Anzick-1 in the oldest Central American genome,
as the most ancient individual from Belize has evidence of more Anzick-1 relatedness than later Belize individuals
as reflected in the weakly significant statistic f4(Mbuti, Anzick-1; Belize_SakiTzul_7400BP, Belize_MayahakCabPek_9300BP) (Z = 2.1).

Taken together, these results support the hypothesis that
an expansion of a group associated with the Clovis culture left an impact far beyond the geographic region in which this culture was spread.

At the same time, both classes of models provide evidence against a stronger version of this hypothesis, which is that
an expansion of a homogeneous population associated with the Clovis culture was the primary source of the ancestry of later Central and South Americans.

Specifically, both models find that the overwhelming majority of the ancestry of most Central and South Americans derives from one or more lineages without the Anzick-1 affinities present at Lapa do Santo. Thus, a different ANC-A lineage from the one represented in Anzick-1 made the most important contribution to South Americans,
and there must have been a population turnover in the mid-Holocene that largely replaced groups such as
the ones represented by the ∼10,900 BP individual at Los Rieles in Chile
and the ∼9,600 BP individuals at Lapa do Santo in Brazil.

This genetic evidence of a major population turnover correlates with the findings from morphological studies of a population turnover in Brazil around this time (Hubbe et al., 2014).
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
All the Ancient South Americans Descend from the Same Eurasian Source Population

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).

We tested for this signal in the ancient South American individuals with statistics of the form
f4(Mbuti, Australasian; X, Mixe or ancient South American),
and while we replicated the originally reported signal when X was present-day Karitiana or Surui,
we could not detect a signal when X was any of the ancient South Americans (Table S6).

We also studied the statistic f4(Mbuti, Tianyuan; Ancient1, Ancient2)
to test if any ancient individual is differentially related to Tianyuan (Yang et al., 2017),
but no statistic was significant (Table S6).

We finally applied qpWave to all pairs of South American groups,
testing whether they were homogeneously related to a set of diverse non-Native American outgroups (Mbuti, Han, Onge, French, and Papuan)
and found no pair of ancient South Americans that consistently gave significant signals, as expected if all the ancient South
Americans we analyzed derived from the same stem Native American population (Table S6).

Our failure to find significant evidence of Australasian or Paleolithic East Asian affinities in any of the ancient Central and South
American individuals raises the question of what ancient populations could have contributed the Population Y signal in Surui and other
Amazonian groups and increases the previously small chance that this signal—despite the strong statistical evidence for it—was a false-
positive. A priority is to search for the Population Y signal in additional ancient genomes.

Our finding of no excess allele sharing with non-Native American populations in the ancient samples is also striking
as many of these individuals—including those at Lapa do Santo—have a “Paleoamerican” cranial morphology
that has been suggested to be evidence of the spread of a substructured population
of at least two different Native American source populations from Asia to the Americas (von Cramon-Taubadel et al., 2017).

Our finding that
early Holocene individuals with such a morphology
are consistent with deriving all their ancestry
from the same homogeneous ancestral population
as other Native Americans
extends the finding of Raghavan et al., 2015 who came to a similar conclusion
after analyzing Native Americans inferred to have Paleoamerican morphology who lived within the last millennium.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Discussion

Our finding of two previously undocumented genetic exchanges between North and South America has significant implications for models of the peopling of the Americas.
Most important, our discovery that the Clovis-associated Anzick-1 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 (Moreno-Mayar et al., 2018a
).

A second notable finding of this study is our evidence that the ancient individuals from the California Channel Islands have distinctive and significant allele sharing with groups that became widespread over the Central Andes after ∼4,200 BP. There is no archaeological evidence of large-scale cultural exchange between North and South America around this time, but it is important to recognize that ∼4,200 BP is a minimum date for the exchange between North and South American that drove this pattern; the gene flow itself could have occurred thousands of years before and the ancestry deriving from it could have persisted in a region of South America not yet sampled with ancient DNA. The evidence of an expansion of this ancestry type in the Central Andes by ∼4,200 BP is notable in light of the increasing density of sites in this region at approximately this time, a pattern that is consistent with a demographic expansion of a previously more restricted population (Goldberg et al., 2016
).
We conclude by highlighting several limitations of this study. First, all the individuals we newly report have a date less than ∼11,000 BP and thus we could not directly probe the initial movements of people into Central and South America. Second, from the period between 11,000–3,000 BP that includes most of our individuals, we lacked ancient data from Amazonia, northern South America, and the Caribbean and thus cannot determine how individuals from these regions relate to the ones we analyzed. Third, because we reported few individuals from after 3000 BP, this study provides just a glimpse of the power of this type of analysis to reveal more recent events. Regionally focused studies with large sample sizes are needed to realize the potential of ancient DNA to reveal how the human diversity of this region came to be the way it is today.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Skoglund et Al believe that the Y-population was already mixed with First Americans / Native Americans when it reached the Americas and specifically the Amazon.

quote:

---

These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas. Although this is a formal possibility, an alternative model that we view as more plausible is that the ‘Population Y’ (after Ypykue´ra, which means‘ancestor’ in the Tupi language family spoken by the Suruı´and Karitiana) that contributed Australasian-related ancestry to Amazonians was already mixed with a lineage related to First Americans at the time it reached Amazonia. When we model such a scenario, we obtain a fit for models that specify 2–85% of the ancestry of the Surui;,Karitiana and Xavante as coming from Population Y. These results show that quite a high fraction of Amazonian ancestry today might be derived from Population Y. At the same time, the results constrain the fraction of Amazonian ancestry that comes from an Australasian related population(via Population Y) to a much tighter range of 1–2% .

---

quote:

---

while Population Y shows a distant genetic affinity to Andamanese, Australian and New Guinean populations, it is not particularly closely related to any of them, suggesting that the source of population Y in Eurasia no longer exists

---

quote:

---

We do not detect any excess affinity to Australasians in the,12,600-year-old Clovis-associated Anzick individual from western Montana

---

quote:

---

Genomic analysis of both Lapa do Santo and Lapa do Sumidouro individuals do not indicate an excess of extra-continental genetic affinities in relation to any modern or past Amerindian populations (Fig. 20). The unique exception is individual ‘Sumidouro 5’—the only high coverage genome (*15x) available for Lagoa Santa—in which a putative *2– 3% ancestry related to Australasian populations (i.e., Andaman, Onge, Papuans and Australians) was identified

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:

Cosimo Posth, Nathan Nakatsuka, Iosif Lazaridis, Johannes Krause, David Reich, et al (2018)
Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America


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




Long-Standing Population Continuity in Multiple Regions of South America

The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people.
For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Core individuals.

In Belize, individuals from Mayahak Cab Pek and Saki Tzul dating to ∼9,300 and ∼7,400 BP do not share significantly more alleles with present-day people from the region near Belize than they do with present-day groups elsewhere in Central and South America.

In Brazil, genetic data from sites dating to ∼9,600 BP (Lapa do Santo) and ∼6,700 BP (Laranjal) show no distinctive shared ancestry with present-day Brazilians (Figures 2 and S1; Table S1), although the Laranjal individuals do show potential evidence of shared ancestry with a ∼5,800 BP individual from Moraes (Table S4), confirmed by the statistic f4(Mbuti, Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP; Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Brazil_Moraes_5800BP), which is Z = 7.7 standard errors from zero.


We detect long-standing continuity between ancient and present-day Native Americans in each of the regions of South America we analyzed beginning at least ∼5,800 BP, a pattern that is evident in heatmaps, neighbor-joining trees, and multi-dimensional scaling plots computed on outgroup-f3 statistics (Figures 2, S1, and S2; Table S1).

In Peru, the most ancient individuals dating up to ∼9,000 BP from Cuncaicha and Lauricocha share alleles at the highest rate with present-day indigenous groups living in the Central Andes (Lindo et al., 2018, Llamas et al., 2016).

Individuals dating up to ∼8,600 BP from Arroyo Seco 2 and Laguna Chica also show the strongest allele sharing with some present-day indigenous people in the Southern Core.

In Brazil, the evidence of continuity with present-day indigenous people begins with the Moraes individual at ∼5,800 BP. A striking pattern of continuity with present-day people is also observed in the ∼2,000 BP Jabuticabeira 2 individuals who were part of the Sambaqui shell-mound building tradition that was spread along the south Brazilian coast from around 8,000–1,000 BP. The Jabuticabeira 2 individuals share significantly more alleles with some Ge-speaking groups than they do with some Tupi-Guarani speaking groups who have been predominant on the coast during the post-Colonial period (Figure S3; Table S1). This supports the theory of shared ancestry between the makers of the Sambaqui culture and the speakers of proto-Ge who are hypothesized to have lived in the region ∼2,000 BP (Iriarte et al., 2017). These findings also support the theory of coastal replacement of Ge speakers by Tupi-Guarani speakers after ∼1,000 BP (Hubbe et al., 2009) (STAR Methods).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
And yes, Brandon I would very much appreciate that pdf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

Well, know that we have evidence of a peopling of the Americas > 20kya there's no telling what we could find genetically.

---

Probably the most tangible evidence is the foot prints from White Sands in New Mexico which are dated to about 21000 - 23000 years old.

They are preserved in gypsum rich sediments



A picture how it can have looked when people put their footprints at the shore of an ancient lake
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
I don't know how much similar morphology applies to close biological relationship.

I think there's enough evidence that it doesn't.

Like the non-close genetic relationship between most Inner Africans, Andamans Islanders, Papuans, and Melanesians who share brown-black skin, nappy hair, broad noses with wide nostrils, and thick lips.


revisit Evolutionary tree of life: modern science is showing how we got so much wrong thx DJ


As posted above, my research shows me North or South American paleo-morphology does not necessarily equal Austronesian molecular biology.

Does the extensively quoted Posth et al article indicate Population Y is younger than the earliest American peoples?

Moreno-Mayar (2018) didn't find any Austronesian related genome in the Spirit Cave sample which by head morphology resembles Austronesians. They did find Austronesian genomic signature in a 10,400 year old Brazil sample though. They posit these two statements


"Notably, all sequenced Paleoamericans (including
Kennewick Man/Ancient One) (2, 10) are genetically
closer to contemporary NAs than to any
other ancient or contemporary group sequenced
to date."

2. M. Raghavan et al., Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and
recent population history of Native Americans. Science 349,
aab3884–aab3884 (2015). doi: 10.1126/science.aab3884;
pmid: 26198033

10. M. Rasmussen et al., The ancestry and affiliations of
Kennewick Man. Nature 523, 455–458 (2015).



"Although we detected the Australasian signal
in 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 any
other 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
(2, 10, 13, 54).

6. P. Skoglund et al., Genetic evidence for two founding
populations of the Americas. Nature 525, 104–108 (2015).
pmid: 26196601

54. G. R. Scott et al., Sinodonty, Sundadonty, and the Beringian
Standstill model: Issues of timing and migrations into the New
World. Quat. Int. 466, 233–246 (2018). doi: 10.1016/
j.quaint.2016.04.027


Moreno-Mayar 2018 (Willerslev Labs) F2 K=16 [YYT al~T north to south REDUX]



=-=-=-=-=-=-=


Castro e Silva's team and Ribeiro dos Santos' team have the most recent scientific articles. Anybody got any comments/insights on them?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
This is a problem with European anthropology and their tendency towards promoting monolithic typologies for populations which in the past were called races, as in trying to define populations by their phenotype (or generally cranial morphology). Native Americans have always been diverse and possessed a wide range of variation in features which in turn are an extension of the wide range of features found in Asia going back thousands of years. Australasians are Asians. They don't all look the same and have variations in features. East Asians are Asians and don't all look the same and have variation in features. Same thing for South Asians and South East Asians. Native Americans live on a continent that extends from both the extreme northern and southern regions and crosses the Equator. All of these populations do not look alike and have a variation of features that span the gamut of features found in Asia from lighter skin North Asian features, to tropical Pacific type features, to South Asian features and Aboriginal Australian features. It is consistent with these populations being descended from an ancient Asian root whether they call came in one wave or not. Trying to model these populations as a monolithic "type" is the issue and the facts on the ground don't support it, as this variation can still be seen to this very day. But these European scientists just cannot seem to accept that. After all some of these same people were also not to long ago triggering Native Americans by trying to argue that early Native Americans looked like Patrick Stewart (kennewick man reconstruction). And this exposes the fact that all of these typologies have always been used to try and push the idea that all over the world, advancement in culture throughout history was associated with a gradient in skin color. So any kind of advanced culture was always assumed to be associated with light skin and more primitive cultures always associated with dark skin. And yes a lot of that mentality still exists in these modern academic models. In fact, Australasians were often seen as the most primitive examples of hour species and remnants of archaic hominids by European anthropologists even up to less than 100 years ago.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
@ Tukuler

I think you are confusing Australasian with Austronesian. Australasians are dark-skinned peoples like Aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, and Southeast Asian Negritos. Austronesians are people who speak Austronesian languages, such as aboriginal Taiwanese, Filipinos, Malays, and Polynesians. There are some people of Australasian type (e.g. Fijians and some other Melanesians) who speak Austronesian languages, but most Austronesians look more like modern "Sundadont" Southeast Asians than dark-skinned Australasians.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, morphology varied quite a bit among ancient Native Americans, and some researchers have tried to put them in different racial categories, thus the Kennewick man was, based on his skull, thought to maybe have been more related to Europeans, while Luzia in the beginning was classified as Australasian or even African.

Once upon a time (1970s) polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski, classified Mesoamerican skulls as both European and African (he did for some reason not use other Native American skulls as reference).

Even earlier back in time people like the Swedish race scientist Anders Retzius thought that Native Americans had different geographical origins depending on which skull forms they had. Thus these researchers thought that natives with short skulls descended from Asia while those with long skulls descended from North Africa or the Canary islands.

Today most of these classifications have to be abandoned since genetics have shown that both now living and ancient Native American peoples are more related to each other than to any populations from outside the Americas.



Some facial reconstructions:
Top left: Eve of Naharon (Mexico)
Top right: Spirit cave (USA)
Bottom left: Luzia (Brazil)
Bottom right: Kennewick man (USA)
 

---

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

Mayan

You also have to look at catalog of skulls they are using to compare to
Above some Mayans but in their skull collection for Native Americans
did they have some of these broader headed types below?
Sometimes you find that their comparison skull data sets are limited but I'm not sure the case here




If someone with expertise was analyzing their skulls with no other information given
could they get the continent right?
My guess is they might not
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes, morphology varied quite a bit among ancient Native Americans, and some researchers have tried to put them in different racial categories, thus the Kennewick man was, based on his skull, thought to maybe have been more related to Europeans, while Luzia in the beginning was classified as Australasian or even African.

Once upon a time (1970s) polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski, classified Mesoamerican skulls as both European and African (he did for some reason not use other Native American skulls as reference).

Even earlier back in time people like the Swedish race scientist Anders Retzius thought that Native Americans had different geographical origins depending on which skull forms they had. Thus these researchers thought that natives with short skulls descended from Asia while those with long skulls descended from North Africa or the Canary islands.

Today most of these classifications have to be abandoned since genetics have shown that both now living and ancient Native American peoples are more related to each other than to any populations from outside the Americas.



Some facial reconstructions:
Top left: Eve of Naharon (Mexico)
Top right: Spirit cave (USA)
Bottom left: Luzia (Brazil)
Bottom right: Kennewick man (USA)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

^^ fascinating that people of same species did not interbreed for so long time, and at the same time we know that our species once interbred with both Neanderthals and Denisovans, who are supposed to be other species.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Yes, morphology varied quite a bit among ancient Native Americans, and some researchers have tried to put them in different racial categories, thus the Kennewick man was, based on his skull, thought to maybe have been more related to Europeans, while Luzia in the beginning was classified as Australasian or even African.

Once upon a time (1970s) polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski, classified Mesoamerican skulls as both European and African (he did for some reason not use other Native American skulls as reference).

Even earlier back in time people like the Swedish race scientist Anders Retzius thought that Native Americans had different geographical origins depending on which skull forms they had. Thus these researchers thought that natives with short skulls descended from Asia while those with long skulls descended from North Africa or the Canary islands.

Today most of these classifications have to be abandoned since genetics have shown that both now living and ancient Native American peoples are more related to each other than to any populations from outside the Americas.



Some facial reconstructions:
Top left: Eve of Naharon (Mexico)
Top right: Spirit cave (USA)
Bottom left: Luzia (Brazil)
Bottom right: Kennewick man (USA)

---

^ Yes, that is exactly why racial concepts of "caucasoid" and "negroid" are called into question. The same type of craniometric diversity is seen in Africa yet some use that as their basis to de-Africanize or Eurasianize (white-wash) Africans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

^^ fascinating that people of same species did not interbreed for so long time, and at the same time we know that our species once interbred with both Neanderthals and Denisovans, who are supposed to be other species.

---

Yes, which means there was some socio-cultural factors at play which prevented such interbreeding.

By the way, that there was some deep genetic distinction among the Paleoindians may not be reflected in craniofacial form but it sure was reflected in dental morphology.

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).

The typical Indigenous American dental form is not only sinodonty but super-sinodonty, yet we see traces of sundadonty in South American specimens. This could only mean genetically distinct populations.

---

quote:

---

On the basis of tooth morphology, Christy G. Turner II argued that Native American populations were derived from Northeast Asians who exhibited a specialized Sinodont dental pattern, featuring crown complexity and root simplification. Researchers who focus on craniometrics (e.g., Walter Neves, Doug Owsley) question this interpretation, positing instead two source populations for Native Americans -- an early group that shows its greatest similarity to Southeast Asian and Oceanic populations and a later group allied to Northeast Asians. This view has also been argued by dental researchers who claim the presence of both Sundadont and Sinodont dental patterns in the New World. We address this impasse by constructing three models that lay out the expectations for: (1) Sinodont only descendants; (2) Sundadont early, Sinodont late; and (3) the Beringian standstill, with commonalities among New World groups and distinct differences from both Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians. One dental trait (3RM1) shows a pattern of variation consistent with model 2, but the majority of traits are equally divided in supporting the Sinodont only (1) and Beringian standstill (2) models. The possibility of Southeast Asia and Oceania serving as significant source populations for the colonization of the New World is not supported by dental morphological data.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
Recently, some fossilized human footprints found in New Mexico have been dated to 23,000 years ago, making them the oldest such tracks thus found in the Americas.

The weird thing is, genetic research has implied that Native Americans alive today trace the majority of their ancestry to migrants from northeastern Asia who arrived between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago, long after these tracks were laid. However, a few populations in South America do contain small bits of ancestry from another population that also admixed with Aboriginal Australians, named "Population Y".

It seems likely to me that the people who laid those footprints in New Mexico 23 kya were either Population Y or a related group of people.

I wonder what these people would have looked like? Would they have looked Black like modern Australasians, or would they have been lighter brown and more "Mongoloid" in appearance like modern East Asian and Native Americans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Black skinned Asians are Asians not Africans...

There is nothing wrong with celebrating black people around the world in ancient and modern times along with their culture and history. Obviously that disproves the notion that black skin equates with inferiority as the earliest cultures and civilization often came from people with black skin. But to call all of these people Africans is just as much pseudoscience as anything else. If you go back further in time all humans converge on an Africoid phenotype because all humans originate in Africa, but that is over tens of thousands of years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:


I wonder what these people would have looked like? Would they have looked Black like modern Australasians, or would they have been lighter brown and more "Mongoloid" in appearance like modern East Asian and Native Americans?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:


I wonder what these people would have looked like? Would they have looked like modern Australasians or would they have looked more like modern East Asians and Native Americans?

---

quote:

---

In conclusion, the seven ancient Native Americans studied here were predicted to have intermediate/brown eyes, black hair and intermediate/darker skin pigmentation, which is highly consistent (a) with predictions we made from genomes of 22 contemporary Native Americans [19] and (b) with anthropological knowledge regarding Native American pigmentation variation [26–29].

---

Telles Carratto TM, et al 2020:´Insights on hair, skin and eye color of ancient and contemporary Native Americans´
Forensic Science International: Genetics (2020)

Insights of hair, skin and eye color

The methodology to get such information is getting better so maybe future DNA testing regarding skin color, eye color, hair color and hair type can be fruitful.

In Europe they seem already have developed tools to discern skin color from rather degraded DNA

Phenotyping the ancient world: The physical appearance and ancestry of very degraded samples from a chalcolithic human remains
Science direct, 2017

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875176817300501
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
One of the now living individuals who was most like the Sumidouro 5 individual, in both tools that calculated skin color from DNA, belongs to the Karitiana people, who also have a small Australasian signal in their DNA, just like Sumidouro 5.



A person from the Karitiana people in Brazil
 

---

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

 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
OK ya got me there

My use of Austronesian is not the dictionary one.
By Austronesian I mean from Australia to Melanesia.
I will spell it Austranesian from now on.
I include the Andamans too.

In general I meant those Indian to Pacific oceans people with wooly hair in distinction to Indochina's blacks who have feathery hair.


Meanwhile won't you please accept the dictionary meaning of black, thank you.

Native Australians, Papuans, and Melanesians are not merely dark (a truly ambiguous term) they are black.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:
@ Tukuler

I think you are confusing Austr[b]alasian with Austronesian. Australasians are dark-skinned peoples like Aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, and Southeast Asian Negritos. Austronesians are people who speak Austronesian languages, such as aboriginal Taiwanese, Filipinos, Malays, and Polynesians. There are some people of Australasian type (e.g. Fijians and some other Melanesians) who speak Austronesian languages, but most Austronesians look more like modern "Sundadont" Southeast Asians than dark-skinned Australasians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Meanwhile won't you please accept the dictionary meaning of black, thank you.

---

quote:

---

By common consent the ethnic history of our American continents should The American begin from the West. It is evident that the American Mongoloids - for so we may designate the aboriginal nations of the New World - are connected by race, affinity, and descent with the Asiatic and Polynesian Mongoloids whom we have considered in the preceding book. It is from our western shores that we must follow inland, even to the Atlantic coast, the lines of that race dispersion by which our aborigines were distributed to the places in which they were found by the European adventurers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

As we have frequently indicated in preceding parts of the present work, the routes by which Asiatics and Polynesians came to America in the prehistoric ages were two in number, or, at most, four. One of these was Siberia and the other Polynesian. The Siberian lines appear to have gone the one by way of Behring strait, and the other through the Aleutian Islands. Th Polynesian line seems to have divided, sending one branch through Lower Polynesia against the central western coast of South America, while the upper, or western branch, was directed by way of the Sandwich Islands to Mexico and Central America. Our western coasts having thus been reached by branches of the Mongoloid stock, the rest may be easily, because of the distribution of barbarous tribes through our continents from west to east was in no wise difficult after they were once well established along the western shores.

---

quote:

---

In the beginning of such a discussion many reflections of a general character respecting the races about to be considered suggest themselves to the inquirer. One of the first of these is the laying of geographical boundaries around that division of mankind defined as Black. This great task in our present state of knowledge is not difficult to perform. Time was in the near past, however, when the boundaries of the Black races were unknown. Those boundaries, indeed, were supposed to be vastly more extensive than subsequent inquiry has shown to be the fact. The whole tendency of ethnological investigation for the last half century has been to narrow the geographical areas occupied by the Black races.


WE now purpose to take up and consider in its turn the last of the three primary divisions of the human family. This is the Black race, to which many references have already been made in preceding portions of this work. Our prime classification of the various branches of the human family has, from the first, proceeded on the general line of color, and this method we now follow to its ultimate results by including in our last group of peoples all those who by the test of complexion may be classified together as Blacks.

In the beginning of such a discussion many reflections of a general character respecting the races about to be considered suggest themselves to the inquirer. One of the first of these is the laying of geographical boundaries around that division of mankind defined as Black. This task in our present advanced state of knowledge is not difficult to perform. Time was in the near past, however, when the boundaries of the Black races were unknown. Those boundaries, indeed, were supposed to be vastly more extensive than subsequent inquiry has shown to be the fact. The whole tendency of ethnological investigation for the last half century has been to narrow the geographical areas occupied by the Black races.

Not so long ago it was supposed, in a general way, that all of Africa, ancient and modern, was essentially Nigritian in its populations. This has now been shown to be [wholly incorrect. All of North Africa above the twentieth parallel has been entirely excluded from he classification. This large part of the continent has belonged in the past - and so belongs in the present - to the Hamitic races, and, perhaps, in a smaller measure to the Semites. The limits of the Black race have thus been narrowed on the north to the inner tropics. The remainder of the continent, except on the east, belongs to the Blacks - though the southern part, below the Tropic of Capricorn, has had an ambiguous ethnography, the true character of which is not yet definitely ascertained. We may thus say in general terms that the Western, or African, division of the Black races is confined to the intertropical spaces of the Dark Continent.

As to the Eastern division of the Black races, the same narrowing tendency in its boundaries may be observed. It was formerly supposed that the south of India for as far as the twentieth parallel north was dominated by Black peoples, whereas we now know that only the extreme part of that great peninsula was touched by the true Blacks in their distribution eastward. In like manner the Indonesian islands were formerly assigned to the Blacks, whereas subsequent inquiry has shown that the Malays have their ethnic relationships with the Brown races of Southeastern Asia. Only Australia and the Papuan parts of New Guinea, with certain associated points of land belonging to Melanesia, remain as the true seats of the Black distribution eastward.

There are thus seen to be in a general way only two principal branches of the Black race, namely, the Western, or Nigritian, branch distributed through equatorial and Southern Africa ; and the Eastern, or Australian, branch, distributed in Australia, Papua, and the smaller islands of Melanesia. The limits of the race, as a whole, are thus narrowed, both latitudinally and longi- tudinally, especially the former. The uttermost eastern dispersion of the Black division of mankind reaches as far as the Fiji islands, under the iSoth meridian of Greenwich, while the Western departure goes out as far as Cape Verde, about longitude 17 degrees W. The northern barrier of the race reaches geographically the Sahara, in Africa, about the 20th parallel, and the southernmost point of the distribution is in Tasmania, in 42 degrees South.

The next general observation relative to the emplacement of the Black race is the comparative unimportance of the countries occupied thereby. Of these, the greatest potency is doubtlessly in Equatorial Africa. That part of the world, however, has thus far remained unclaimed by civilization, although Northern and Northeastern Africa have been the seats of some of the oldest, most famous, and most important, as well as the most highly civilized, nations of the ancient world.

After Africa, Australia is by far the most important of the countries having an original population of Blacks. While it would not be proper to depreciate Australia as a seat of civilization, it must nevertheless be admitted that a large part of that island-continent is un- reclaimable, and that the whole of it is so greatly divided by broad oceans from the continental parts of the world as to place the country at a great disadvantage in the competition for preeminence.

As to New Guinea, the island is neither large enough nor well enough emplaced to give it a great importance in the general survey of the earth's habitable parts. It will thus be .seen that, on the whole, the geographical areas held originally, and in most part to the present time, by the Black races are the least consequential of the countries of the earth.

Our next general observation relates to the race itself, and its comparative rank in the general category of mankind. The Black division of human kind holds by far the lowest level of any of our species. Its emergence from the total obscurity of unrecorded paganism and merely animal stages of progress has been so slight as scarcely to mark a stage in the forward march. Beyond this the other races have gone forth on vast excursions to enlightenment and power. They have passed te borders of the physical and material, and have entered the intellectual life. They have organized powerful communities, nations, states, kingdoms, and dominions, and have made the thing which, for lack of better name, we call history.

This the Blacks have never done. It is a melancholy fact that they have no history. True, this may be said in almost equal degree of many of those other peoples whom we designate as aborigines. Aye, more; it is doubtlessly true, or was true, at some former period of all the aborigines of the earth, and therefore true of the human race itself.

<snip>

Still another general observation respecting the Black race, as such, has reference to its antiquity; that is, to the relative position which it occupies in the general scheme of mankind. More simply, the question stands thus : Is the Black division of the human race older or younger than the other branches of the human family? Strangely enough, arguments seemingly valid may be discovered on both sides of this question. Historically and ethnologically it would appear that the Black race is the oldest division of the human family. In former parts of the present work we have held to this contention, showing that the native seat of the human race was in that part of the world from which the Blacks have evidently proceeded. From that situation all the other races are far off; that is, the Ruddy and the Brown races have seemingly made their way to great distances from that center out of which only the whole human family could have arisen. This is seemingly a Black origin rather than any other. It would thus appear that the other races have arisen from a Black stem, have branched therefrom; have differentiated from an older stock of darker and still darker hue down to the complexion of blackness.

The reasoning would be that the lighter and still lighter color of the different races is the result of the remotest development ethnologically, chronologically, and geographically. Such reasoning would point clearly to the conclusion that the Black race was the first of humanity to rise out of merely animal conditions; the first to receive the rudiments of reason, and of those instincts and sentiments that are above the horizon of the beasts ; the first to stand in a situation toward which the uplifted prehensile hand of the chimpanzee was stretched forth to grasp the heel of a true humanity.

---

https://archive.org/details/ridpathsuniversa08ridp/page/607/mode/1up
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
"Population Y" like "Basal Eurasian"
are hypothetical populations with no actual human remains indicated.

Researchers imagine these "ghost" populations
and them later people write about them as if they existed

Yet they are theoretical

I take them with a grain of salt.
 

---

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

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2025739118#fig01

more recent article submitted 2020

earlier article talking a lot about theoretical "population Y" was way back in 2015
Skoglund et al (2015), Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas ,
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
"Population Y" like "Basal Eurasian"
are hypothetical populations with no actual human remains indicated.

Researchers imagine these "ghost" populations
and them later people write about them as if they existed

Yet they are theoretical

I take them with a grain of salt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

All of these papers, their contrary views and the back and forth about these ancient populations still boil down to an attempt to promote racial typologies. Sundadont and Sindadonty are both tied to outdated concepts of mongoloid morphologies in Asia.

---

Actually there is nothing contradictory about the papers I cited. They all agree that there existed different morphologies among early Americans and all these studies including what Archaeopteryx shows is that they debunk racial typologies altogether. As for the dental complexes they remain valid though I don't know how they can be tied to any racial concept since the people who possess those complexes are themselves morphologically diverse within each complex.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Some of these old photos seem to have been consciously taken so that they would contribute to an effect of "verfremdung" (alienation). The foreign people are depicted in strange angles, often they seem darker than they were, and one took shots from different sides to show deviating head shapes (compared with the European standard). In some ways they remind of mug shots, the person is bereft of his individuality and become an object.

Here in Scandinavia similar photos were often taken of Saami people, who were considered exotic and belonging to another race than other Scandinavians.

The old photos are from Carlos Chagas expedition 1912. Carlos Chagas was a physician and expert on tropical medicine.





Here are some other photos of Karitiana people, where they are depicted in a way that are more everyday.



About the many different takes on the significance of population Y, and the overshadowing interest for eventual Australasian and other "foreign" connections in the early history of the Americas, not only among scientists but also among laymen. In some way maybe it has with identity to do, a wish, especially among Americans, to find some way to identify with the continent itself by trying to find ancient connections. White Americans thought they found one through for example Kennewick man ("white people were here first"), some black Americans thought they found some through Luzia ("black people where here first"). In some peculiar way identity and science became mixed up.

Here in Scandinavia we also have had some debates about who came first, the ancestors of Scandinavians or Saami. In the end it seems as the oldest ancestors were the same, the Scandinavian hunter gatherers, who later in the south were mixed with Anatolian farmers and with Eastern steppe people, while the Saami instead got mixed with eastern Finno ugric speakers sometimes during the bronze age. But the debate is still ongoing.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

All of these papers, their contrary views and the back and forth about these ancient populations still boil down to an attempt to promote racial typologies. Sundadont and Sindadonty are both tied to outdated concepts of mongoloid morphologies in Asia.

---

Actually there is nothing contradictory about the papers I cited. They all agree that there existed different morphologies among early Americans and all these studies including what Archaeopteryx shows is that they debunk racial typologies altogether. As for the dental complexes they remain valid though I don't know how they can be tied to any racial concept since the people who possess those complexes are themselves morphologically diverse within each complex.

---

Maybe the difficulty is to reconcile skull morphology, dental morphology and genetics. How are they connected, and what does it mean?

And since skin color and hair structure also are a part of ones morphology (and can say something about adaptation to different levels of UV radiation and similar factors) it is interesting to find tools to assess such traits too. And in what way are for example skull morphology connected to skin color? Are they at all connected? Is a certain head shape connected with a special skin color or hair structure? Especially in ancient times. maybe there were combinations we do not see today, as in Europe where once blue eyes in combination with dark skin seem to have been more common than today.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
In the site Human phenotypes people are divided in a lot of separate "types" or racial cathegories similar to old times racial typologies. Here they also try to connect ancient people with now living peoples. One such cathegory is the "Lagoa Santa" which the site connects with the Lagoa Santa fossils from Brazil. Some of the peoples that are said to belong to this cathegory are among those who are said to have traces of population Y or Australasian ancestry in their genetics.

But the cathegorisations on the site build on rather old and probably outdated literature.



"Lagoa Santa type" represented by an average of several photos from the site "Human phenotypes"

Lagoa santa- from "Human Phenotypes"
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

All of these papers, their contrary views and the back and forth about these ancient populations still boil down to an attempt to promote racial typologies. Sundadont and Sindadonty are both tied to outdated concepts of mongoloid morphologies in Asia.

---

Actually there is nothing contradictory about the papers I cited. They all agree that there existed different morphologies among early Americans and all these studies including what Archaeopteryx shows is that they debunk racial typologies altogether. As for the dental complexes they remain valid though I don't know how they can be tied to any racial concept since the people who possess those complexes are themselves morphologically diverse within each complex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

Here are some other photos of Karitiana people, where they are depicted in a way that are more everyday.

---

https://www.facebook.com/people/Antenor-Karitiana/100008221782569/
(he uses his tribe name as last name)
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

https://www.facebook.com/people/Antenor-Karitiana/100008221782569/
(he uses his tribe name as last name)

---

quote:

---

The Karitiana, like the Suruí, became victims in the race to profit from the genetic diversity and wealth that swept through Amazonia from the end of the 1980s. Samples were collected from their bodies on two occasions, events that, even today, have significant implications for the Karitiana history and conception of their relations with the white world.

---

Socioambiental-Karitiana
 

---

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

Another photo of Antenor-Karitiana from his Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/people/Antenor-Karitiana/100008221782569/
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
A couple of more Karitiana persons



Karitiana musician



Daniel Karitiana
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Getting back to the issue of who the first Americans were, one problem we have is that we don't even know the full range of morphological diversity for proto-Amerindians let alone that of Population Y.

Amerindian ancestors came from northeast Asia, and I pointed out how diverse peoples from that region already looked here: Data from a 40,000-year-old man in China reveals complicated genetic history of Asia.
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Not sure how relevant it is, but they actually sequenced DNA from a Red Deer Cave sample that shows a relationship with Native Americans' East Asian ancestors recently:

Scientists Sequence Genome of Red Deer Cave Human

quote:

---

Researchers have sequenced and analyzed the genome of a Late Pleistocene hominin from Red Deer Cave located in Southwest China, which was previously reported possessing mosaic features of modern and archaic hominins. Their results indicate that the individual from Red Deer Cave is an anatomically modern human who exhibits genetic continuity to present day populations and is linked deeply to the East Asian ancestry that contributed to First Americans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrandonP:

Not sure how relevant it is, but they actually sequenced DNA from a Red Deer Cave sample that shows a relationship with Native Americans' East Asian ancestors recently:

Scientists Sequence Genome of Red Deer Cave Human

quote:

---

Researchers have sequenced and analyzed the genome of a Late Pleistocene hominin from Red Deer Cave located in Southwest China, which was previously reported possessing mosaic features of modern and archaic hominins. Their results indicate that the individual from Red Deer Cave is an anatomically modern human who exhibits genetic continuity to present day populations and is linked deeply to the East Asian ancestry that contributed to First Americans.

---

---

This is the woman with the massive projecting malars that gave her skull a 'Darth Vader' look.



Because of unusual features, she was initially thought to be another species of Hominid, how interesting that it turns out she is an East Asian ancestor.
 

---

Posted by Tehutimes (Member # 21712) on :
 
That Johnny Ridpath was a proud boy proud to espouse his racist agenda. Hamites in the Sahara which blocked Blacks from living in northern/northeastern Africa.His jive is alive and well in some academics/laypersons limited views in the 21st century.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

It seems that there are many genetic threads that lead to Native Americans

One is the 46 000 years old findings from a cave in Bulgaria. The inhabitants were related to East Asians and Native Americans:

Ancient genomes shed new light on the earliest Europeans and their relationships with Neandertals
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. 2021
https://www.mpg.de/16663512/genomes-earliest-europeans

Another is the 24 000 years old remains from Mal´ta in Siberia:

24,000-year-old boy’s skeleton suggests first Americans
came from Siberia
https://earthsky.org/science-wire/24000-year-old-boys-skeleton-suggests-first-americans-came-from-siberia/

Another is 14 000 years old remains from southern Siberia:

DNA from 14,000-year-old tooth offers oldest known link between Native Americans and southern Siberia
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/06/05/dna-from-14000-year-old-tooth-offers-oldest-known-link-between-native-americans-and-southern-siberia/

---

The link between Native Americans and Europeans autosomally is a population called the 'Ancient North Eurasians' or ANE for short.

Modern Native Americans genetically are said to be two-thirds East Asian and one-third ANE.



This is also reflected in the Y-chromosome with the predominant clade being haplogroup Q.



Interestingly ANE ancestry has its highest frequency today in rural northwestern Siberian groups like the Kets and Selkups.

https://i.imgur.com/l41EaZS.png
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Also interesting that the 45 000 years old remains from Bacho Kiro Cave in Bulgaria show such link but not the similarly old remains in Zlatý Kun in Czechia which did not have such connection. Some other Europen populations did not show that connection either.

Prüfer, Kay et al. 2021 ´A genome sequence from a modern human skull over 45,000 years old from Zlatý Kun in Czechia´
Nature Ecology & Evolution

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01443-x




Full size map
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ This goes to show just how heterogenous the earliest settlers of the European subcontinent was. I believe the same holds true for the Americas-- that although America was settled by Eurasians, these Eurasian populations differed. You had ANE, NEA (Northeast Asian) and now you have a Population Y which I believe is a Basal East Asian that resided in Eastern Asia likely eastern China before ANE took over that region.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
We just have to wait for more samples from the Americas telling us exactly when the first peoples arrived and how their genetic composition was like.

Today the oldest genetic evidence is eDNA from Paisley Caves in Oregon, DNA from Naia in Mexico, DNA from Anzick-1 in Montana, some DNA fom Lagoa Santa in Brazil and the DNA from the Spirit Cave mummy from Nevada. Those are the oldest findings of human DNA so far in the Americas. They all show relatedness with moden Native Americans.
Seems that so far only one of the individuals from Lagoa Santa has some of the Australasian signature (2-3% Australasian ancestry).

The oldest traces we have of humans in the Americas are the 21 000 -23 000 years old foot prints from New Mexico, and we have Eve of Naharons 13 600 years old skeleton from Mexico, which did not yield any DNA.

The future has to show if the earlier mentioned butchering site holds up to what it promised.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
There is no real mystery here. 40,000 years ago Eurasia was populated by Aboriginal looking populations of different types similar to those now found in South Asia and the Pacific. And really what this boils down to is that humans have had a tropically adapted phenotype. Now unless they are trying to argue that these ancient populations suddenly changed to a northern cold adapted phenotype, there is really nothing shocking here. And nobody in their right mind would even suggest that Asians 40,000 years ago would look the same and have the diversity of features they do today. Mixing with archaics really doesn't have much bearing on this because humans lived with archaics in Africa before OOA. And many early African AMH remains have somewhat archaic features. Recall that all hominids originate in Africa in the first place.

I think we generally have more than enough information on these populations to know that the came from Asia. Of course, the timing question is a big factor here as one assumes that the closer the settlement of the Americas is to modern times, the more they would resemble modern populations in Asia. A more relevant question would be how related these populations were to ancient populations in other parts of Asia but that would require ancient DNA from South Asia and Australia, especially as the arrival dates get pushed back.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
We do not know how the oldest Americans looked like (as those who left their footprints at White Sands). The oldest skeleton we have is from Mexico (Eve of Naharon) and they did a facial reconstruction of her. The oldest preserved mummy is about 10 400 years ago and we at least know that he had straight hair (preserved) and intermediate skin color (according to his DNA) .

They have also calculated the skin tone (also from DNA) of one of the Lagoa Santa individuals and it seemed to have a similar skin tone as the Karitiana people, and related peoples, in the Amazon.

We do not have any fossils from 30 000 or 40 000 years in America and we do not know for sure if there at all were any people in the Americas at that time. As long we do not have any skeletons or DNA, we can not know how they looked like. We can only speculate.

We only know how people looked like from 13 600 years and forward (except White sands, there we know which form their feet had).

Also if people stayed at Beringia for thousands of years as some researchers speculate they can have become more adapted to less sun and a colder climate. It depends some on how long they lived on higher latitudes before entering America.

White sands is up to 23 000 years old, that gives room for thousands of years adaptation before entering the Americas. So far we have no older traces of humans. And no bones until 13 600 years ago.

Also the DNA so far found in the Americas show that all remains are more related with each other, and to now living Native Americans, than to any population outside the Americas, even if there are threads leading to Asia (and even to Europe).

It is interesting that the morphology of the ancient Native Americans varied a lot: from those who looked a bit European (Quintana Roo), Native American (Quintana Roo), Arctic (Quintana Roo) to those who looked more Australasian (Lagoa Santa). Still their DNA show that they were related.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
We do not know how the oldest Americans looked like (as those who left their footprints at White Sands). The oldest skeleton we have is from Mexico (Eve of Naharon) and they did a facial reconstruction of her. The oldest preserved mummy is about 10 400 years ago and we at least know that he had straight hair (preserved) and intermediate skin color (according to his DNA) .

They have also calculated the skin tone (also from DNA) of one of the Lagoa Santa individuals and it seemed to have a similar skin tone as the Karitiana people, and related peoples, in the Amazon.

We do not have any fossils from 30 000 or 40 000 years in America and we do not know for sure if there at all were any people in the Americas at that time. As long we do not have any skeletons or DNA, we can not know how they looked like. We can only speculate.

We only know how people looked like from 13 600 years and forward (except White sands, there we know which form their feet had).

Also if people stayed at Beringia for thousands of years as some researchers speculate they can have become more adapted to less sun and a colder climate. It depends some on how long they lived on higher latitudes before entering America.

White sands is up to 23 000 years old, that gives room for thousands of years adaptation before entering the Americas. So far we have no older traces of humans. And no bones until 13 600 years ago.

Also the DNA so far found in the Americas show that all remains are more related with each other, and to now living Native Americans, than to any population outside the Americas, even if there are threads leading to Asia (and even to Europe).

It is interesting that the morphology of the ancient Native Americans varied a lot: from those who looked a bit European (Quintana Roo), Native American (Quintana Roo), Arctic (Quintana Roo) to those who looked more Australasian (Lagoa Santa). Still their DNA show that they were related.

---

That doesn't even make sense. Europeans saw Native Americans when they got here 500 years ago. And there are still Native Americans with various features in the continent today. There is no one look for Native Americans. Obviously these discussions of the distinctions between the skulls of population Y and modern Native Americans are metric traits that aren't always noticable by the human eye. There are native Americans to this day that have features similar to that of Luzia and other various populations across Asia and the Pacific. So, yes, we do know what they looked like and it isn't much different than those that still exist. The only distinction is whether the original populations were more tropically adapted (ie darker skinned) than most North East Asians today. And various Europeans have been documenting and writing about the diversity and features of these people for hundreds of years. Like I said, this is about trying to paint a picture of the first settlers all looking one way when they were diverse just like Asia is diverse and native Americans are diverse.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Of course they saw Native Americans 500 years ago, and they would have seen Native Americans 13 000 years ago too if they had come there then. From the oldest human remains in the America, and forward they have been closer to each other than to any populations outside of the Americas.

The only thing we know about skin color in the oldest people is what DNA can tell us, and the skin color of for example the Spirit cave man was intermediate and the skin color of the Lagoa Santa (Sumidouro 5) was like the Karitiana today. Today the skin colors vary some, some natives are darker, some are lighter. We have a spectra from some of the Californian tribes as rather dark, or the Tarahumara in Mexico. Other peoples are more lightskinned, just like the people in Guyana I posted about earlier in the thread.

We know also that some of the early peoples were rather varied in their skull forms, as I mentioned about the Quintana Roo skulls who are somewhat different from each other, or to the Lagoa Santa. This is what we know, this is the tangible evidence we have.

Even the old race biologists noticed that some Native Americans had longer skulls (in those time they speculated that they maybe descended from the Canary Islands, and others had shorter skulls, so they speculated they came from East Asia).

The exact skin tone we do not know, or the exact look since the oldest Native Americans still has not yielded any skeletons or DNA. It is still about 9400 years between the footprints in White Sands and Eve of Naharon. It is 9000 years between the footprints and the oldest DNA. It is about 11 000 years between the footprints and Luzia. So we probably will see some local adaptations happening during all these years. We can have an educated guess how the earliest peoples looked like but we can not know exactly until we actually find skeletons and DNA.

We can only guess that they were not too unlike later peoples in the Americas.

Outside the Americas remains like the Mal´ta boy are among the closest to Native Americans. He lived about 1000 years before the footprints at White Sands, and he is somewhat genetically related.
-----



One can expect some variation in skin tones from people who adapted to different environments and different variations of UV light, during so many thousand years.
And we also see on the map such variations, depending on factors like latitude and altitude (combined with some migration).
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
One can also wonder how the Bering stand still hypothesis plays in to all this? According to it people could have lived and adapted on Beringia for thousands of years, on rather high latitudes, before they entered into America.

Biomarkers on both sides of Bering straits can give some credibility to the hypothesis.

quote:

---

Over the last few decades, a new theory has formed, called the Beringian Standstill Hypothesis (BSH). According to the BSH, the Bering Land Bridge wasn’t just a bridge, but part of a landscape that humans long inhabited. Perhaps humans populated Beringia, ranging from northeastern Siberia to northwestern Canada, for thousands of years, during the Last Glacial Maximum (about 25,000 BCE) and before moving south into the Americas. Rather than, or in addition to, a swift movement into North America, an isolated human population might have settled in Beringia, diverging genetically and culturally from their Eurasian ancestors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Of course they saw Native Americans 500 years ago, and they would have seen Native Americans 13 000 years ago too if they had come there then. From the oldest human remains in the America, and forward they have been closer to each other than to any populations outside of the Americas.

The only thing we know about skin color in the oldest people is what DNA can tell us, and the skin color of for example the Spirit cave man was intermediate and the skin color of the Lagoa Santa (Sumidouro 5) was like the Karitiana today. Today the skin colors vary some, some natives are darker, some are lighter. We have a spectra from some of the Californian tribes as rather dark, or the Tarahumara in Mexico. Other peoples are more lightskinned, just like the people in Guyana I posted about earlier in the thread.

We know also that some of the early peoples were rather varied in their skull forms, as I mentioned about the Quintana Roo skulls who are somewhat different from each other, or to the Lagoa Santa. This is what we know, this is the tangible evidence we have.

Even the old race biologists noticed that some Native Americans had longer skulls (in those time they speculated that they maybe descended from the Canary Islands, and others had shorter skulls, so they speculated they came from East Asia).

The exact skin tone we do not know, or the exact look since the oldest Native Americans still has not yielded any skeletons or DNA. It is still about 9400 years between the footprints in White Sands and Eve of Naharon. It is 9000 years between the footprints and the oldest DNA. It is about 11 000 years between the footprints and Luzia. So we probably will see some local adaptations happening during all these years. We can have an educated guess how the earliest peoples looked like but we can not know exactly until we actually find skeletons and DNA.

We can only guess that they were not too unlike later peoples in the Americas.

Outside the Americas remains like the Mal´ta boy are among the closest to Native Americans. He lived about 1000 years before the footprints at White Sands, and he is somewhat genetically related.
-----



One can expect some variation in skin tones from people who adapted to different environments and different variations of UV light, during so many thousand years.
And we also see on the map such variations, depending on factors like latitude and altitude (combined with some migration).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
We do not know exactly how dark the first Americans were since if the Beringia standstill theory is valid they may have adapted to high latitudes for long time before entering the Americas. Beringia is on the same latitudes as Scandinavia, it is not some tropical place. We also know that the genetic variants that gave rise to lighter skin existed already 25 000 years ago or earlier. So the only way to really find out is to get skeletons with preserved DNA from the oldest time. As we see it now the oldest skeletons so far found (and who got sequenced) did not have very dark skin according to DNA. They had skin tones within todays variation among Native Americans.

And the tropical adaptions can just be adaptations to new environments. It is at least 11000 years between White Sands and for example Luzia, so those who lived in the tropics had time to adapt.

According to DNA, the Lagoa Santa had similar skin tones as the Karitiana today, so they were in the range of todays Native Americans.

---

quote:

---

Supporting the mosaic nature of the evolution of Homo sapiens

These results complement an idea that is dominant in evolutionary anthropology: that there is no linear history of human species, but that different branches of our evolutionary tree coexisted and often intersected. “The breadth of the range of human diversity in the past has surprised anthropologists. Even within Homo sapiens there are fossils, such as the ones I mentioned earlier from Jebel Irhoud, which, because of their features, were thought to belong to another species. That’s why we say that human beings have lived a mosaic evolution,” he notes.

“Our results,” the researcher continues, “offer a picture of how our genetics changed, which fits this idea, as we found no evidence of evolutionary changes that depended on one or a several key mutations,” he says.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Not nonsense. We actually have certain findings, so we know something about how the people looked like that we have remains from in the Americas. I do not say that everyone looked the same (there were for example variation in skull morphology) but you can not just invent people in the Americas that we have no real fossils from. The oldest human remains are 13 600 years old, you do not know how people looked like 23 000 years ago in America because we have no fossils from that time. You just have some wish that everyone was black, but we have no real proof that they were black (the DNA we actually have found show colors within the scope of todays variation among Native Americans). We must go after what we find, not how you think people ought to have looked like. We know that there existed people who had affinity for lighter skin in Asia about 25 000 years ago. We also know that certain expressions of genes like the Edar gene existed even earlier. People lived in northern latitudes for millennia. Do you really think that they did not adapt in any way to those latitudes? Would they live for thousands of years on arctic latitudes and still look exactly like tropical peoples? I hope you are aware of where Beringia was located?

You want to invent a population we actually have no physical remains of.

What we know is that ancient and modern Native Americans are genetically more related to each other than to other groups in the world. Then there are of course variations among them too. Just as there were variation among their Asian ancestors. And you already know that native Americans vary in skin tones. But we have no real proof of people in the Americas whose skin tones go beyond the variation we can see among now living Native American peoples. At least not among those we have examined to find out such traits.

---

No it is nonsense. You are trying to invent some "missing link" population when there is no missing link. The original Native Americans were Asians and Asians 30,000 years ago and today don't all look the same. Your argument is gibberish. The diversity seen in the Americas today is descended from the ancestors that settled the Americas. There is no "other" population that gave them this diversity that is "missing". Again, the problem is you and Europeans trying to fit and force square pegs into a round hole. Ancestral Asians were diverse before they migrated to the Americas and they were diverse after they go to the Americas. The problem is that Europeans want to force populations into strict sets of phenotypes and cranial features which did not exist in ancient humans. Like I said. And you are doing it now. There is nothing really "missing" in terms of where the Native Americans came from or what they looked like. The DNA picture will become clearer as time goes on, but DNA is not phenotype and no new "missing group" of ancient Asians is going to be found that is drastically different than the remains that have already been found both in Asia and in the Americas. And no magical super speed evolution happpened in Beringia to remove the diversity from the Ancestral Asians and then turn them into a less diverse population before settling the Americas. That is also nonsense. Evolution does not stop or start on any particular part of the planet, it is a continual process and evolution creates diversity as opposed to removing it.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
It is you who talk nonsense, you postulate a people we have no physical evidence of.

If people lived on Beringia for thousands of years it would mean they had chance to adapt some to local conditions. Or do you think everyone stayed what they were thousands of years later? Do you think evolution stopped on Beringia?

I do not try to fit anyone into anything, but we just have to go by what we have. I know that there are varying skull shapes, from those who looked more European, to Arctic looking to Melanesian looking. But their DNA still shows that they were related with todays Native Americans more than to other populations outside the Americas.

You have not any skeletons from the period from 23 000 years agoo to 13 600 years ago so you have no real clue exactly how they looked like. But since later fossils show relatedness with each other and todays Native Americans we can assume they were not very unlike the later peoples. We also can assume some local adaptations.

We also know something about the skn color of the early Americans we have such data from, and they show variations within the frames of now living Native Americans.

We know that people with Edar genes existed already 30000 years ago in Asia and we know about lighter skin tones about 25 000 years ago. Oldest fossil Americans are 13 600 years. There are no older skeletons so far.

You can not prove anything without any fossils, so your assumption about the period 23 000 to 13 600 is just speculations until we find fossils from that period.

You can just speculate until you have any actual human remains to show.

There are signs of a bottle neck episode in Beringia which of course also can have affected the diversity of those who ventured further into the Americas. Some local adaptions may also happened during the 10 000 to 15 000 years stand still in Beringia.

BTW, until you leave your blackcentric bias behind you have no cause of complaining on how "Europeans" interpret fossils or genetics. Especially not those who actually work with such things, as a job, which I suppose you do not?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Europeans like to claim internal diversity only for themselves. Pointed out for decades by black scholars a Filipino also noted it, PKM's Primer. Now it's mainstream biological anthropology thanks to Dr Tina Lasisi.


Explained deftly @ 17:35 and @ 25:16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT_HmUR8iuc

HAIR



SKIN



FITZPATRICK FLAWED BY EUROCENTRISM




PRECISE MELANIN COUNT BY REFLECTANCE SPECTROMETER

 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
To return to the subject of this thread.

Some researchers have forwarded models for a standstill on Beringia which can have lasted for many millennia. They also forward theories about a bottle neck event in association with the stand still. This can have lead to changes in the genetic composition, with some traits disappearing, but also some new ones appearing.

Hopefully older fossils from both sides of the Bering strait, and ancient DNA, will show more about what changes people went through on Beringia during periods of isolation. Here is a paper discussing some aspects:


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08212-1
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
It is you who talk nonsense, you postulate a people we have no physical evidence of.

If people lived on Beringia for thousands of years it would mean they had chance to adapt some to local conditions. Or do you think everyone stayed what they were thousands of years later? Do you think evolution stopped on Beringia?
I do not try to fit anyone into anything, but we just have to go by what we have. I know that there are varying skull shapes, from those who looked more European, to Arctic looking to Melanesian looking. But their DNA still shows that they were related with todays Native Americans more than to other populations outside the Americas.

You have not any skeletons from the period from 23 000 years agoo to 13 600 years ago so you have no real clue exactly how they looked like. But since later fossils show relatedness with each other and todays Native Americans we can assume they were not very unlike the later peoples. We also can assume some local adaptations.

We also know something about the skn color of the early Americans we have such data from, and they show variations within the frames of now living Native Americans.

We know that people with Edar genes existed already 30000 years ago in Asia and we know about lighter skin tones about 25 000 years ago. Oldest fossil Americans are 13 600 years. There are no older skeletons so far.

You can not prove anything without any fossils, so your assumption about the period 23 000 to 13 600 is just speculations until we find fossils from that period.

You can just speculate until you have any actual human remains to show.

There are signs of a bottle neck episode in Beringia which of course also can have affected the diversity of those who ventured further into the Americas. Some local adaptions may also happened during the 10 000 to 15 000 years stand still in Beringia.

BTW, until you leave your blackcentric bias behind you have no cause of complaining on how "Europeans" interpret fossils or genetics. Especially not those who actually work with such things, as a job, which I suppose you do not?

---

quote:

---

During the Last Glacial Maximum, a small band of Siberians entered the Beringian corridor, where they persisted, isolated from gene flow, for several thousand years before expansion into the Americas. The ecological features of the Beringian environment, coupled with an extended period of isolation at small population size, would have provided evolutionary opportunity for novel genetic variation to arise as both rare standing variants and new mutations were driven to high frequency through both neutral and directed processes. Here we perform a full genome investigation of Native American populations in the Thousand Genomes Project Phase 3 to identify unique high frequency alleles that can be dated to an origin in Beringia. Our analyses demonstrate that descendant populations of Native Americans harbor 20,424 such variants, which is on a scale comparable only to Africa and the Out of Africa bottleneck. This is consistent with simulations of a serial founder effects model. Tests for selection reveal that some of these Beringian variants were likely driven to high frequency by adaptive processes, and bioinformatic analyses suggest possible phenotypic pathways that were under selection during the Beringian Isolation period. Specifically, pathways related to cardiac processes and melanocyte function appear to be enriched for selected Beringian variants.

---

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08212-1


The earliest human remains we found in the Americas show people whose ancestors probably went through the bottle neck and gained some new traits and lost some old. That does not hinder that there still was a certain variation, but not exactly the same as before the period of isolation. And still today there is variation, which ought to have been enhanced by many millennia of local adaptation.

The ancestors of Native Americans can have become isolated on Beringia about 30 000 years ago. About 10 000 years later we find footprints of people in New Mexico. Nearly 14 000 years ago people left DNA in caves in Oregon. 13 600 years ago we find the oldest skeleton in Mexico. So both on Beringia and later in different parts of the Americas we find local adaptations. The period between 23 000 years ago (and earlier) and 13 600 years ago we have no human fossils in the Americas. To find them (and their DNA) would of course increase the knowledge about both differences from, and similarities with the source populations in Asia, but also similarities and differences in relation to later groups.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Facial reconstruction are a combination of hard data and guess work. But well done, they can give some kind of impression on how people might have looked like. When working with criminal forensics one goal is to make reconstructions which enable the deceased to be recognized by people who knew them. With reconstructions of ancient people there is no such possibility, but hopefully they are rather similar anyway.

Here are four very early Native Americans



1 Eve of Naharon 13 600 BP, Mexico

2 Naia between 12 000 and 13 000 BP, Mexico. She also yielded some DNA

3 Luzia, c 11 500 years BP, Lagoa santa Brazil (here compared with a Yanomami woman).

4 Spirit cave mummy, c 11 000 BP, Nevada USA. He also yielded some DNA. Some of the DNA was suggestive of him having an intermediate skin tone. We also know he had straight hair.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Archeopteryx:

To return to the subject of this thread.

Some researchers have forwarded models for a standstill on Beringia which can have lasted for many millennia. They also forward theories about a bottle neck event in association with the stand still. This can have lead to changes in the genetic composition, with some traits disappearing, but also some new ones appearing.

Hopefully older fossils from both sides of the Bering strait, and ancient DNA, will show more about what changes people went through on Beringia during periods of isolation. Here is a paper discussing some aspects:


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-08212-1

---

The problem with the Beringia Stand Still model is that it assumes the ONLY route of entry into the Americas was through the Beringia land bridge itself. It does not take into account maritime access via the southern coastline.



The Americas were founded by distinct populations from Asia. How else do you explain the sundadonty seen in some remains despite the vast majority of Amerindians being super-sinodonty?
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
We do not yet know if there were more than one route. We do not know exactly when different morphological traits first occur in Native populations. That is why we would have to have some fossils from earlier periods, at least from the time of the first tangible evidence of human occupation 23 000 years ago (if the dates for White Sands are reliable).

We need to ask some questions:

Did the people who left their tracks at a place like White Sands have similar genetic signature as the DNA findings we have from later specimens (like Anzick-1 and others)?

Which source populations do we have, ie which populations can we trace from Asia to America? So far all native American populations are more genetically related to each other than to any non American people. But there are connections.

And if there are different source population, do they still exist? I read that the source to the Y-signal can be a population that maybe are extinc today.

If they came at different times, who came when? Can we make a reliable timeline?

Can we genetically pinpoint a population that did not experience a bottleneck episode on Beringia? It would mean that they may have preserved certain genetic traits that the population that became isolated does not have, or it may lack some traits that those who were isolated aquired during the isolation.

Can certain genetic signatures (among native Americans) be coupled to certain morphologies, ie skull shape or different tooth morphology?

For example in Quintana Roo (in Mexico) they found skulls with rather different morphology ("Arctic", "European", "Native American") They are found in relatively close proximity but with some chronological distance. Are their different morphology mirrored by genetic differences (they have not been sequenced so we do not really know yet)?

If there were several populations coming into the Americas which ones left a genetic legacy to todays population?

Did any of these lineages go extinct?

Do we find any genetic signature that is radically different than other signatures?

Did the traits that developed in isolation in Beringia spread to other groups that came another way, for example through the Kelp highway?

I think not all of these questions are fully understood yet.

It would be a good help if we found fossils (with DNA in them) that fill out the time gap between 23 000 years ago and to about 13 000 years ago when we start to get both fossils and DNA.

Also we have to look at geographical factors, when was the kelp highway possible to traverse? Whas it also blocked by ice during certain periods?

As in your map, Eve of Naharon for example predates the ice free corridor. So her ancestors can have come along the coast. But exactly when? New fossils could answer such questions.

Work is also done to better map eventual island stepping stones (when they were above water or not covered by ice) to see when people could have used them.

Here is a very interesting article which discusses different scenarios.

quote:

---

Retrospective sea-level mapping advances a promising geographic solution to the longstanding mystery about when, where, and how the first Americans crossed over from Asia. A paleotopographic reconstruction accounting for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment digitally explores an archipelago about 1400 km long that likely existed from 30,000 BP to 8000 BP. Here the authors examine this Bering Transitory Archipelago in regard to established hypotheses—Clovis-first, Ice-free (deglaciation) Corridor, Kelp Highway, and Beringian Standstill hypotheses—and a new Stepping-Stones hypothesis. Scores of islands at that time would meet all requirements previously proposed for a viable hypothesis: a source population in Asia, a pathway with abundant sustenance, settlements in North America soon after but not before, and an isolated sanctuary where Beringians could have become genetically distinct.

---

Dobson, Jerome E, et al. 2021: ´The Bering Transitory Archipelago: stepping stones for the first Americans´
Comptes Rendus Academie Sciences
https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/geoscience/articles/10.5802/crgeos.53/



Maps which show geographical conditions around Beringia and possible migration routes

Full size maps

Maps from Niedbalski & Long, 2022
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Another difficulty to pinpoint when and how and if different peoples went over Beringia, or along it´s southern coast is that much of these ancient landscapes now are inundated. It does not make it easier to find the connections.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The same can be said about Beringian corridor, much of which is also underwater.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Both much of the Beringia landmass itself and the the archipelago (island stepping stones) outside it are under water. It takes marine archaeological investigations to find eventual ancient sites. It reminds somewhat of the situation in Northwestern Europe where for example Doggerland now lies under water. But there are investigations ongoing to map it and find traces of human activity. But such investigations takes time and are rather expensive.



Beringia



Beringia and its´archipelago during different times (from Dobson et al, 2021)

Larger image here
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
Population Y strikes again?

Ancient DNA analysis sheds light on the early peopling of South America

quote:

---

Researchers also found strong Australasian (Australia and Papua New Guinea) genetic signals in an ancient genome from Panama.

"There is an entire Pacific Ocean between Australasia and the Americas, and we still don't know how these ancestral genomic signals appeared in Central and South America without leaving traces in North America," said Andre Luiz Campelo dos Santos, Ph.D., first author, an archaeologist and a postdoctoral fellow in FAU's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.

---

Original paper is here:

Genomic evidence for ancient human migration routes along South America's Atlantic coast
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Earlier studies has also revealed an Australasian signal on the Aleut islands, far away from South and Central America.

Shall be interesting if they can get a grip on exactly which peoples came to the Americas and when they came. So far the oldest genetic evidence is about 13 or 14 000 years old, but we have footprints in New Mexico that is 23000 years. Would be good if we could find DNA from the makers of those footprints.

Chemical traces in lakes in Alaska suggests a human presence on Beringia maybe as early as 34000 years ago. Would be nice to find DNA from those early peoples.

`Sedimentary biomarkers reaffirm human impacts on northern Beringian ecosystems during the Last Glacial period´
BOREAS 2020
web page
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I'll read that paper on S. American Atlantic coast migration routes this weekend.

But if humans were present in Beringia approx. 34 kya, then their presence in N. America 23000 years ago would make sense.

The genetic differences between these out-of-Asian populations should give good indications just how diverse Asians were during the Pleistocene.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Okay, so I read the full paper here and it is very interesting. It seems we are only scratching the surface of Population Y.


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
New research suggests the older dating of some footprints in the Americas may need to be verified.

quote:

---

The wide expanse of an ancient lakebed in New Mexico holds the preserved footprints of life that roamed millennia ago. Giant sloths and mammoths left their mark, and alongside them, signs of our human ancestors. Research published in September 2021 claimed that these footprints are "definitive evidence of human occupation of North America" during the last ice age, dating back to between 23 and 21 thousand years ago. Now, a new study disputes the evidence of such an early age.

Scientists from DRI, Kansas State University, the University of Nevada, Reno, and Oregon State University caution in Quaternary Research that the dating evidence is insufficient for claims that would so radically alter our understanding of when, and how, humans first arrived in North America. Using the same dating method and materials, the new study shows that the footprints could have been left thousands of years later than originally claimed.

---

quote:

---

Abstract
The ancient human footprints in valley-bottom sediments in Tularosa Valley, New Mexico, are fascinating and potentially important because they suggest interactions between Pleistocene megafauna as well as great antiquity. The dating of those footprints is crucial in interpretations of when humans first came to North America from Asia, but the ages have larger uncertainties than has been reported. Some of that uncertainty is related to the possibility of a radiocarbon reservoir in the water in which the dated propagules of Ruppia cirrhosa grew. As a test of that possibility, Ruppia specimens collected in 1947 from nearby Malpais Spring returned a radiocarbon age of ca. 7400 cal yr BP. We think it would be appropriate to devise and implement independent means for dating the footprints, thus lowering the uncertainty in the proposed age of the footprints and leading to a better understanding of when humans first arrived in the Americas.

---

A critical assessment of claims that human footprints in the Lake Otero basin, New Mexico date to the Last Glacial Maximum
Quaternary Research, 2022
https://tinyurl.com/ycxfcc3s

Interesting and fascinating thought that these people lived side by side with animals belonging to the great megafauna of North America.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
One interesting clue to were in Asia Native Americans originally came from is also to look at the percentage of Denisova ancestry in them. It seems the Denisova percentage are more in line with mainland Asians than with for example Papuans.



Proportion of the genome inferred to be Denisovan in ancestry in diverse non-Africans. The color scale is not linear to allow saturation of the high Denisova proportions in Oceania (bright red) and better visualization of the peak of Denisova proportion in South Asia.

The map copied from Svante Pääbos Nobel lecture, but originally from Sankararaman et al., 2016: `The Combined Landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal Ancestry in Present-Day Humans´ Current Biology 26, 1–7, May 9, 2016
 

---

Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
 
They have found possible pendants made from giant sloth bones in South America that may date between 25-27 kya.

Pendants made from giant sloths suggest earlier arrival of people in the Americas

quote:

---

New research suggests humans lived in South America at the same time as now extinct giant sloths, bolstering evidence that people arrived in the Americas earlier than once thought.

Scientists analyzed triangular and teardrop-shaped pendants made of bony material from the sloths. They concluded that the carved and polished shapes and drilled holes were the work of deliberate craftsmanship.

Dating of the ornaments and sediment at the Brazil site where they were found point to an age of 25,000 to 27,000 years ago, the researchers reported. That’s several thousand years before some earlier theories had suggested the first people arrived in the Americas, after migrating out from Africa and then Eurasia.

---

quote:

---

Abstract
The peopling of the Americas and human interaction with the Pleistocene megafauna in South America remain hotly debated. The Santa Elina rock shelter in Central Brazil shows evidence of successive human settlements from around the last glacial maximum (LGM) to the Early Holocene. Two Pleistocene archaeological layers include rich lithic industry associated with remains of the extinct giant ground sloth Glossotherium phoenesis. The remains include thousands of osteoderms (i.e. dermal bones), three of which were human-modified. In this study, we perform a traceological analysis of these artefacts by optical microscopy, non-destructive scanning electron microscopy, UV/visible photoluminescence and synchrotron-based microtomography. We also describe the spatial association between the giant sloth bone remains and stone tools and provide a Bayesian age model that confirms the timing of this association in two time horizons of the Pleistocene in Santa Elina. The conclusion from our traceological study is that the three giant sloth osteoderms were intentionally modified into artefacts before fossilization of the bones. This provides additional evidence for the contemporaneity of humans and megafauna, and for the human manufacturing of personal artefacts on bone remains of ground sloths, around the LGM in Central Brazil.

---

quote:

---

The Population Y signal related to Andamanese and Australasian populations could not be detected in the early Holocene Capelinha_10400BP individual or in the Amazonian Palmeiras Xingu_500BP individual. However, we report this signal in individuals from the southern sambaqui sites of Cabeçuda_3200BP and JabuticabeiraII_~2400BP. The latter is the only pre-colonial group exhibiting higher affinity to non-American ancestries even in direct comparison to another ancient Brazilian group (Supplementary Data 7). If confirmed, the sporadic identification of the Population Y signal in ancient individuals with different ancestries, locations and time periods across Brazil—where this signal was first described—suggests a higher probability that it derives from genetic structure in the founding Native American population than from multiple independent migrations into the Americas.

---

 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
This map is an illustration from the above mentioned study. The samples in red rectangles are the ones which show the Y signal



Here is the original map -without the rectangles- in larger size

a, The archaeological sites analysed in this study, with the number of analysed individuals reported in brackets. Sites with newly reported genome-wide data are shown in black font, and those with previously published genome-wide data are shown in grey (this color scheme is maintained in all main text figures). The symbols used for each site refer to the associated archaeological cultures (see the legend in Extended Data Fig. 8). The shaded areas represent the broad geographic regions analysed in this work: (1) lower Amazon, (2) northeastern Brazil, (3) Lagoa Santa, (4a) southeastern Atlantic coast and (4b) southern Atlantic coast. The Kaingang burial is geographically closer to the southeastern Atlantic coast but was included in the southern Atlantic group due to its specific genetic affinity. The locations of present-day indigenous groups are represented with yellow dots. b, The calibrated ages (coloured bars) of single directly dated individuals with new genomic data and, in black font, the mean calibrated ages for the respective groups/individuals. For the previously published ancient genome-wide data62,63, the mean calibrated ages for the respective groups/individuals are reported in grey, whereas the white bars represent the temporal range of all directly dated individuals included in each group. Figure related to Supplementary Data 1.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Interesting video that summarizes some of the debates about Population Y. One can also see that there can be a discrepancy between skull morphology and genetic ancestry shown for example in some examples from Lagoa Santa (in Brazil) whose skull morphology got some researchers to believe they had strong Australasian ancestry which their DNA refuted, and the Kennewick man whose features led people to believe that he had European ancestry which were contradicted by his DNA.
One 9000 years old skull from Brazil has a skull morphology that clusters with both Native American and modern Vietnamese and Malaysian morphologies.

It is also interesting that the oldest Y -signals in America is about 1-3% and it has not changed, it is still about 1-3% in the groups which have the ancestry. Probably the people who brought it to the Americas had just a small percentage of it too.

My guess is that the mixing of population Y into a larger population of non Y people took place long time ago in Asia.
----
A little sidenote: In the film they talk about the Onge from the Andaman islands, but they mostly show pictures of the Jarawa, another Andamanese group. The Andamanese indigenous groups that live today are the Sentinelese, the Jarawa, the Onge and the Great Andamanese. The Onge and the Great Andamanese are very few. The Jarawa and Sentinelese have some more members but are still very few, just a couple of hundreds. One group, the Jangil, or Ruthland Jarawa, are completely extinct.
--
In the film the thought that the Y signal comes from some ancient group of archaic humans in Asia is also forwarded. But as long as population Y is unsampled we can not really know.

Overall it is an interesting video that gives a background to the discussions about population Y. It also shows how much is still to learn about the ancient migrations who led to the peopling of the Americas.

Who was Population Y?
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ In regards to cranial morphology, I've explained here how the Zhoukoudian UC skulls of China show that the further you go back in prehistory especially past the Holocene cranial diversity is so great that modern racial concepts fail to describe them let alone identify genetic ancestry. Although I still believe the nonmetric odontic traits-- sundadonty vs. sinodonty-- does the best job in differentiating the ancestries involved in Paleo-American settlements.
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, the skull morphologies of early Native Americans are rather varied, leading researchers to sometimes place them in different racial groups as in the case with Kennewick man and Luzia. In Quintana Roo in Mexico they found four different skulls whose traits reminded of different peoples, one was similar to other Native Americans and also Asians, one reminded about Arctic peoples, one looked more like European skulls and one had more indeterminable features. The four skulls covered a time span from c 13000 years ago to 9000 years ago.

Hubbe, Mark et al 2020: ´Morphological variation of the early human remains from Quintana Roo, Yucata ´n Peninsula, Mexico: Contributions to the discussions about the settlement of the Americas´ Plos One

Link to the article
 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
The morphological variation among early Native American skulls also left its traces in the different ways they have been reconstructed. Here is four examples all made by Cicero Moraes. Eve is from Mexico and is more than 13000 years old and is considered the oldest human fossil in the Americas.
Apiuna and Diarum are both from Brazil and so is Zusu. Seems Cicero Moraes made them all rather different.


Interpretations of four early Native Americans, by Cicero Moraes


How the skull of Zuzu cluster with different populations. His skull morphology showed similarities with other Native Americans but also with modern Vietnamese and Malaysians.

quote:

---

When positioning Zuzu's data on the study graph (Fig. 3), it is clear that it is close to the average nucleus of modern Vietnamese populations and American archaeological skulls, the latter include individuals from Lagoa Santa, sambaquis and other representatives of the Brazilian natural population comprising the colonial period, going back to more than 10,000 years BP. In addition, there is also a proximity to the population of modern Malays, that is, the structure researched has great affinity with the Asian group.

---

quote:

---

“We don’t have any evidence, archaeologically or genetically, of a trans-Pacific migration,” says Raff. “We do have evidence of a faint signal of shared ancestry between some South Americans, both ancient and modern, and individuals in Australasia, but it doesn’t match what you would expect from a trans-Pacific migration. The signal would be a lot stronger in individuals on the West Coast, and less as you move farther East, but it doesn’t fit with that model. It’s scattershot throughout the population.”

Because of the nature of the signal, Raff and other geneticists believe that Population Y is very, very old, and originated in Asia (the same genetic signal was present in a 40,000-year-old man found in a Chinese cave). Tens of thousands of years ago, some descendants of Population Y went north and others went south. Some of those northern descendants ultimately crossed the land bridge and made it to South America, while some of the southern descendants populated Australasia.

---

quote:

---

The Solutrean hypothesis has many critics, Meltzer and Raff among them. Meltzer wonders how an ancient people with no archeological evidence of boat-making could have navigated an ocean. “Look, the Titanic didn't make it,” he says. “How are a bunch of Solutreans in a boat going to cross the Ice Age North Atlantic?”

For Raff, the proof (or lack of it) is in the genetic record. In 2014, scientists sequenced the genome of the Anzick child, the remains of a Clovis-era boy in Montana who lived 12,700 years ago, making him the oldest burial in the Americas.

“The Anzick genome showed absolutely no genetic evidence of European ancestry, nor do any genomes of pre-contact Native Americans,” says Raff. “Anzick very roundly refuted the Solutrean hypothesis.”

---

quote:

---

For Raff and others, a more likely scenario is that the pre-Clovis humans reached America in boats. The western coastline of North America was ice-free thousands of years earlier than the interior. The pre-Clovis humans could have crossed the Bering Land Bridge on foot, then used simple boats to skirt around the glaciers and make their way down the West Coast of North and South America.

Genomic evidence also supports the coastal boat theory.

“All of the ancient genomes that have been sequenced carry the signature of rapid movement—the rapid divergence of different lineages in the Americas—suggesting that people were moving very quickly,” says Raff. “It’s harder to move that quickly on foot than by boat.”

It could be, says Meltzer, that there were many “pulses” of migrations into the Americas via the land bridge over several millennia, but that the pre-Clovis arrivals were highly mobile and relatively few in number.

“We know that people can be present long before they pop up on archeological radar,” says Meltzer. “It may be that what Clovis represented [13,000 years ago] was the population in the Americas finally getting to the point where there were enough of them out there producing enough stuff that they became archeologically visible—really visible.”

---

quote:

---

Evidence of humans in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum

Despite a plethora of archaeological research over the past century, the timing of human migration into the Americas is still far from resolved. In a study of exposed outcrops of Lake Otero in White Sands National Park in New Mexico, Bennett et al. reveal numerous human footprints dating to about 23,000 to 21,000 years ago. These finds indicate the presence of humans in North America for approximately two millennia during the Last Glacial Maximum south of the migratory barrier created by the ice sheets to the north. This timing coincided with a Northern Hemispheric abrupt warming event, Dansgaard-Oeschger event 2, which drew down lake levels and allowed humans and megafauna to walk on newly exposed surfaces, creating tracks that became preserved in the geologic record. —AMS

---

quote:

---

Human footprints at White Sands National Park, New Mexico, USA, reportedly date to between ~23,000 and 21,000 years ago according to radiocarbon dating of seeds from the aquatic plant Ruppia cirrhosa. These ages remain controversial because of potential old carbon reservoir effects that could compromise their accuracy. We present new calibrated 14C ages of terrestrial pollen collected from the same stratigraphic horizons as those of the Ruppia seeds, along with optically stimulated luminescence ages of sediments from within the human footprint–bearing sequence, to evaluate the veracity of the seed ages. The results show that the chronologic framework originally established for the White Sands footprints is robust and reaffirm that humans were present in North America during the Last Glacial Maximum.

---

Pigati, Jeffrey S. et al 2023: Independent age estimates resolve the controversy of ancient human footprints at White Sands. Science

-----------

Another thread about ancient humans in the Americas:
Topic: article: Ice Age humans migrated from China to the Americas, 2023
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
The Solutrean Hypothesis was refuted when it became apparent that the Y haplogroup R carried by Amerindians was from an entirely different line from that found in Western Europeans.



Not to mention that autosomal data shows no such connection.

Here are all the probable routes of entry for the peopling of the Americas.



Many scientists agree that it is most plausible to go around the Glacial barrier by using a coastal route.


 

---

Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
 
Yes, the only proven connection between Europe and America in precolumbian time is the Norse in L'Anse aux Meadows around 1000 AD. It also seems that the Norse on Greenland continued to travel to the Americas in order to collect timber during a couple of hundred years. It seems these contacts did not leave any discernible traces of "European" DNA among the Native American population. It is possible that it can have left some traces on Iceland though regarding mtDNA haplogroup C1e. But it is also possible that this haplogroup came from Europe or Asia.

Timber import to Norse Greenland:

Timber imports to Norse Greenland: lifeline or luxury? - Antiquity 2023


Location of L'Anse aux Meadows
 

---