posted
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.
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.
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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.
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.Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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
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.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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"Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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.
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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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 ?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Again, beyond theorizing
are there ancient skeletal remains in the Americas with an Austro-Melanesian haplogroup?
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
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Again, beyond theorizing
Theories are based on supporting evidence. For now it's more like a hypothesis.
quote: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. How many times must I repeat this.
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
Apparently you've overlooked a lot. It's simple. Modern Amerindian populations descend from 3 paternal lineages (C-M217, Q-M242, and R1-M73) and 5 maternal lineages (A2, B4, C, D, and X2a).
Interestingly paternal C-M217 is derived from C-M130 which is common in Australian and Oceanian Aborigines, while maternal B4 is derived from older clades of B4 found among Melanesians. So here you have two major clades shared with Australo-Melanesians. Are you satisfied?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ 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.
yes but people love the idea that maybe Australian Aborigines came over in boats
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?
posted
^ 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.
Also, what does what some people "love" in terms of ideas have to do with reality? There are some people who love the idea that ancient Egyptians were Caucasian whites that doesn't make it so.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I think you just don't want to go reading articles
Where is a specific individual in the Americas who has DNA that points to all this emphasis on Australians rather than just being part of a broader Asian gene pool of which they are also a part?
The blog article has a picture of an Australian and mentions Australians 12 times (not Australo-Melanesian, not Chinese, not Taiwanese etc) Why are Australians singled out rather than a broader Asian gene pool? Based on what specimen?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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.
More from the article: 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.”[4] 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.
Which means not all Australasians carry Population Y signature, only some of them due to admixture just like the ancestors of Native Americans.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
You have to get beyond what the blog article says to the actual evidence in the scientific articles mentioned to see if there is the actual physical DNA evidence of Australo-Melanesians DNA in the Amazon, not just take the blog's word for it. That is supposed to be what we do here look at the sources
We have heard this theory before, some researchers looking at ancient American skulls and thinking they looked "Australoid" yet the later the DNA doesn't match However if you do find such a match in an ancient skull or even in some modern tribal Amazonians and then you look at the land route you don't see Australo-Melanesian DNA to the North anywhere in the Americas which would be evidence of a land route. If that was the case the signal should be stronger in North America but it isn't, so this contributes to those by sea theories
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.
^ So let's look at the 2015 Science study, is sit true what the blog says, that 10,400-year-old Lagoa Santa remains in Brazil show this "ghost" population
Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans MAANASA RAGHAVAN
Our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian populations (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes, and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results (24) that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies. Male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population (fig. S41). 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.....
The data presented here are consistent with a single initial migration of all Native Americans and with later gene flow from sources related to East Asians and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. From that single migration, there was a diversification of ancestral Native Americans leading to the formation of northern and southern branches, which appears to have taken place ~13 ka within the Americas. This split is consistent with the patterns of uniparental genomic regions of mtDNA haplogroup X and some Y chromosome C haplotypes being present in northern, but not southern, populations in the Americas (18, 62). This diversification event coincides roughly with the opening of habitable routes along the coastal and the interior corridors into unglaciated North America some 16 and 14 ka, respectively (63, 64), suggesting a possible role of one or both of these routes in the isolation and subsequent dispersal of Native Americans across the continent.
___________________________
I don't see why they even bother mentioning Australo-Melanesians if they were more distant from these native Americans than East Asians.
You said yourself
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.
and you said
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Interestingly paternal C-M217 is derived from C-M130 which is common in Australian and Oceanian Aborigines,
yet they said "C haplotypes being present in northern, but not southern, populations in the Americas "
There are a lot of articles in recent years coming up with "ghost populations" "basal Eurasians" making sexy papers out of it To me it's weak evidence
and here they talk about a "population Y " as if it's a fact
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Population Y ancestry has been detected in both Native South American and Australasian populations, what are the odds of it being present in modern East Asians as well? That seems likely to me if they were based in East Asia prior to dispersing to the Americas and Australasia.
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.
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).
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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
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.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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%.
That said, interracial breeding (or "miscegenation") was more widely accepted and even encouraged in Brazilian society historically compared to the US, which might explain the lower numbers of "pure" Black Brazilians relative to mixed-race people.
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.
you add insults to your posts to try to lure me into like reactions -a lot of people have noticed you do do this
all it means is that some of my arguments have weight otherwise you wouldn't resort to that
and it degrades the forum
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
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
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
posted
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.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
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.
You are still not copying and pasting the URLs so we can see the sources or mentioning the name of the source which is World Population Review
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.
So then if we apply the info from your newer quote
The results of the census indicated that
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.
Assuming that these figures are correct the brown people, some people in Brazil self identify this way "Pardo" (Brown) we see the indigenous are only a quarter of a percent so the vast majority of that brown category are not brown due to being part indigenous, they are brown due to being people of mixed African and European and in Brazil there are a lot more people who are along the lines of half and half then there are in America. In fact most Africans, even ones who have very little European ancestry are brown in color not black. Unlike in America where miscegenation was discouraged in Brazil the Europeans encouraged mixing. Perhaps this was done because Brazil had so many Africans their rulership was under potential future threat and they didn't want a revolution as occurred in Haiti
Anyway according to your source 13 million (7%) were black right there that is 30% higher than your 10 million
But of course these brown people are of African descent. 83 million. So add that to the 13 and we have 96 million of African decent. So there is no magical disappearance of Africans who were brought there
That could have a lot of variations as to what percent those Pardo (brown) people are Some might be 30% African, others 60%
But lets make it easy and say 50%. So even if someone comes along and says the Pardos are half European, if we took the 83 million and divided it in half to 41.5 million and then add the 13 million Africans we get 54.5 million, still a far cry from 10 million
Another thing in the beginning of the trade fertility rates were similar in the diaspora including, Brazil, America and the Caribbean but later in America fertility rates became as much as 80% higher. There was a point that the slave birthrate was 9 children. That was higher than European Americans at the time. That was the so called "breeding" it was pure profit motive. Slaves were bought and sold and did work, more slaves more money. There would be less reliance on importing slaves from Africa, it was cheaper to do things domestically
_________________________
and if we delve into U.S. the so called racial categories had variation
U.S. Census: Slave Schedules, Black or Mulatto, Colored
laves listed in the 1850 Slave Schedules, the vast majority were not listed by name but rather numbered by age, sex, and color [Black or Mulatto]from the oldest to the youngest, all under the name of the slave owner.
When the 1890 Census was taken, the term "Colored" was also used as a race descriptor for some African Americans, as well as for Chinese, Hawaiians, Japanese, Puerto Ricans, Swiss, Native Americans, and many others.
As early as 1850, the term "Colored" had been used in the U.S. Federal Census and in the census of some individual states to describe free persons who were not White. Well beyond the year 1900 in the United States, the terms Black, Mulatto, and Colored were all used on birth, death, and military records and on ship passenger lists.
For the 1930 census, the population questionnaire was basically the same as it had been in 1910 and 1920.
The biggest change was in racial classification. Enumerators were instructed to no longer use the "Mulatto" classification. Instead, they were given special instructions for reporting the race of interracial persons.
A person with both White and Black lineage was to be recorded as Black, no matter fraction of that lineage. A person of mixed Black and American Indian lineage was also to be recorded as Black, unless he was considered to be "predominantly" American Indian and accepted as such within the community.
A person with both White and American Indian lineage was to be recorded as an Indian, unless his American Indian lineage was very small and he was accepted as white within the community. In fact, in all situations in which a person had White and some other racial lineage, he was to be reported as that other race. Persons who had minority interracial lineages were to be reported as the race of their father.
For the first and only time, "Mexican" was listed as a race. Enumerators were to record all persons who had been born in Mexico or whose parents had been born in Mexico and who did not fall into another racial category as "Mexican."
The one-drop rule was not adopted as law until the 20th century: first in Tennessee in 1910 and in Virginia under the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 (following the passage of similar laws in several other states).
In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Racial Integrity Act.[1] The act reinforced racial segregation by prohibiting interracial marriage and classifying as "white" a person "who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian."[2] The act, an outgrowth of eugenist and scientific racist propaganda, was pushed by Walter Plecker, a white supremacist and eugenist who held the post of registrar of Virginia Bureau of Vital Statistics.[3]
The Racial Integrity Act required that all birth certificates and marriage certificates in Virginia to include the person's race as either "white" or "colored." The Act classified all non-whites, including Native Americans, as "colored."[2] The act was part of a series of "racial integrity laws" enacted in Virginia to reinforce racial hierarchies and prohibit the mixing of races; other statutes included the Public Assemblages Act of 1926 (which required the racial segregation of all public meeting areas) and a 1930 act that defined any person with even a trace of African ancestry as black (thus codifying the so-called "one-drop rule").
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
"A lot of people" like who? Actually I don't mean to insult anyone not even you, but unfortunately I have very little tolerance for stupidity whether real or feigned.
quote:all it means is that some of my arguments have weight otherwise you wouldn't resort to that
and it degrades the forum
LOL On the contrary, all of your arguments thus far are baseless and are either strawdolls and/or distortions of the data or what Brandon and I have said. Your idiotic argument is what degrades this 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
Your argument is not academic but a total misconstruction of what the OP supposition is. You do this a lot Lioness and everybody in this forum knows it. Don't get mad because I busted you on this.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
This reminds me of the old Buxton article on the presence of "Negroids" in Pre-Columbian West Indies based on some skeletal remains as shown here and here.
Suffice to say despite the "negroid" features of the skull, later studies by Howell, Sutters, and dental analysis by Turner show as of yet no evidence of Africans in pre-Columbian Americas.
Which comes to show the interesting follies of race typology.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember that 15 years before the discovery of their DNA, Dr. Walter Neves first postulated the existence of Population Y based on cranial morphology of Luzia alone.
1999 NY Times article on Luzia's skull: ..Luzia's Negroid features notwithstanding, Dr. Neves is not arguing that her ancestors came to Brazil from Africa in an early trans-Atlantic migration. Instead, he believes they originated in Southeast Asia, "migrating from there in two directions, south to Australia, where today's aboriginal peoples may be their descendants, and navigating northward along the coast and across the Bering Straits until they reached the Americas."..
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
There's a history of the creek freedmen and Seminole.
posted
The first Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) called the Native Americans "Indios" which was a term for populations in India. This term was also used for populations in Asia as well that were colonized. In general, Indios has always been used to represent populations with darker skin on average.
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.
So the Spanish and other early European settlers have always seen the diversity of native Americans and Asians as being related. Of course, many black Americans get things confused by having their own spin on it as if any ancient black Natives outside Africa are "Africans" even if they are separated geographically, genetically and historically from Africa by a very long distance.
However, the difference between Spanish and Portuguese colonies versus those of Anglo descent is that the Anglos promoted "purity" among the races while the Spanish and Portuguese promoted mixing. But don't be confused, both wind up with the same result of European domination with miscegenation ultimately still promoting majority European ancestry in the long run and erasure of native genetics and identity.
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.
posted
The genetic profile of the Paleoamericans, fails to correspond to that of contemporary Native Americans in the United States . Interestingly, the North American Paleoamerican DNA profile matches minor haplogroups predominately found in South America (Balter,2015)
Much of the DNA for Luzia the 12,000 year old skeleton from Brazil is corrupted, but researchers have recovered aDNA from Naia (Chatters et al, 2014) of Mexico, and the Anzick boy (Balter, 20015; Estes,2015). The Anzick boy skeleton was found in Montana. This Paleoamerican belonged to the Clovis Culture, the same as Kennewick Man (Chatters, 1999; Chatters et al, 2014). The Anzick boy belonged to mtDNA M or D1, and y-chromosome R1 (Estes,2015).
Scientist have also recovered the DNA from Naia (Chatters et al, 2014; Kumar, 2014). Naia belonged to haplogroup D1, which is a descendant of the M haplogroup (Chatters et al,2014).
Researchers have also recovered the aDNA of the ancient Europeans. (Balter,2015). The TMRCA of the paleoamericans were the Khoisan people. The Khoisan were the Cro-Magnon people of Europe (Winters, 2008,2011). They were the first amh to enter western Eurasia (Winters, 2011). The Khoisan introduced haplogroup M to western Eurasia (Winters, 2011, 2014).
The first Europeans like the paleoamericans were dark skinned (Winters, 2014) . The aDNA of the first Europeans comes from the Ust’Ishim skeleton from Siberia (Blater,2015). Ust’Ishim man carried the male lineage R1 ( Balter, 2015; Immanuel, 2014a, 2014b). The mtDNA of Ust’Ishim belonged to haplogroup U (Balter,2015).
The R1 haplogroup was also carried by the Mal’ta boy in Western Eurasia (Blater, 2015; Immanuel, 2014a, 2014b). The Mal’ta boy also belonged to mtDNA haplogroup U (Balter,2015; Immanuel, 2014a, 2014b) ).
The U haplogroup was part of the M macrohaplogroup. The Khoisan carry haplogroups L3(M, N).
Prior to the Khoisan crossing the Straits of Gibraltar to reach Iberia, they probably stopped in West Africa (Winters,2014). The basal L3(M) motif in West Africa is characterized by the Ddel site np 10,394 and Alul site np 10,397 which is associated with AF-24, a haplotype of haplogroup LOd (Winters,2010).
Granted L3 and L2 are not as old as LOd, but Gonder et al. (2006), provides an early date for , L3(M, N) 94.3kya . The South African Khoisan (SAK) carry L1c, L1, L2, L3 M, N dates to 142.3 kya; the Hadza are L2a, L2, L3, M, N, dates to 96.7 kya (Gonder et al, 2006).
The origin dates for L1, L2, L3(M, N) make the haplogroups old enough for the Khoisan to have taken haplogroup M to West Africa, where we find L3, L2 and LOd and thence to Iberia (Winters, 2011) . It is interesting to note that LO haplogroups are primarily found among Khoisan and West Africans (Winters,2011) . This shows that at some point in prehistory the Khoisan had migrated into West Africa.
The major M haplogroup in Africa is M1 (Winters, 2010). The M1 macrohaplogroup is found throughout Africa and Asia. But the basal M1 lineage has not been found outside Africa ( Sun et al, 2006). However, on the basis of currently available FGS sequences, M1 markers have been found in the D4a branch of Haplogroup D , the most widespread branch of M1 in East Asia (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al 2002). These transitions are recurrent in M1 and D4 (Gondor et al, 2006; Winters, 2010). Gonder et al (2006) , argues that the TMRCA of mtDNA L3(M,N) and their derivatives is around 94.3kya (Sun et al,2004). It is hypothesized, that it was not until 65kya that the TMRCA of non-African L3(M,N) exited Africa. This was over 30,000 years after the rise of L3 and LOd in Africa and predicts a significant period of time for anatomically modern humans (amh) living in Africa to spread L3(M) haplogroups across the continent. The existence of the basal L3a(M) motif and the LOd haplotype AF-24 among Senegalese supports this view (Winters, 2010).
Gonder et al (2006), claimed that LOd is exclusive to the southern African Khoisan (SAK) population (Sun et al, 2004). The presence of the ancient AF-24 haplotype among the Senegalese (Chen et al, 2000), that is absent in other parts of Africa, suggest that there was formerly a long-term Khoisan population in the Senegambia that preserved this rare haplotype until —that Niger-Congo speaking populations entered the area.
Wood et al (2005) , found that Khoisan (2.2%) speakers carried the R-M269 y-chromosome . An interesting finding of Henn et al (2011) was the discovery of the Eurasian clade R1b1b1a1a among the Khomani San of South Africa (Henn et al, 2011).
Henn et al (2011), was surprised by the revelation of R-M269 among this Khoisan population . Wood et al (2005) reported Khoisan carriers of R-M269. Bernielle-Lee et al (2009) , in their study of the Baka and Bakola pygmies found the R1b1 haplogroup. These researchers made it clear that the Baka samples clustered closely to Khoisan samples (Bernielle-Lee et al (2009).
R1 probably spread across Europe from Iberia to the east given the distribution of R1 in Africa (Gonzalez, et al ,2012 ). Gonzalez et al (2012) , confirms the African origin for y-chromosome R1 . The researchers found that 10 out of 19 subjects in his study carried R1b1-P25 or M269 as opposed to V88 in Equatoria Guinea (Gonzalez, et al ,2012 ). This is highly significant because it indicates that 53% of the R1 carriers were M269 (Gonzalez, et al ,2012) and supports the African character of M269.
Kennewick man carried mtDNA haplogroup X, this haplogroup is rare among United States Indians. But this haplogroup is carried by Africans.
Some Amerindians in South America carry the X hg. Amerindians and the European hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2007). Shimada et al (2007) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European. Hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African X haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times. This transference is supported by the haplogroups carried by Kennewick man.
Conclusion
In summary, the Paleoamericans and Amerindian groups have different craniometric measurements due to separate origins. While Amerindians originated in East Asia, the Paleoamericans came to America in boats from Africa .
The Khoisan took the Aurignacian and Solutrean cultures to Iberia across the Straits of Gibraltar, from here they spread throughout western Eurasia 45kya (Winters,2011). They probably reached America from Africa carried across the Atlantic by the numerous Atlantic Ocean Currents. The Khoisan origin of Naia, Luzia and Cro-Magnon man explains why paleoamericans and paleowestern Eurasians share the same DNA (Balter, 2015).
Controversy surrounds the identification of Naia’s aDNA. Prufer and Mayer (2015) believe that due to post mortem damage Naia’s DNA was contaminated and does not represent ancient DNA. Given the fact that the other ancient Eurasians and Paleoamericans carried haplogroup M, e.g., the 5000 year old skeletons carrying haplogroup M from China Lake, British Columbia (Malhi et al, 2007), more than likely Naia was D1.
The Khoisan carry the most ancient mtDNA and y-chromosome haplogroups in addition to haplogroups M and R1. This suggest that the paleoamericans were probably Khoisan as suggested by Coon (1962), Howells (1993,1989,1995)and Dixon (2001). These Paleoamericans introduced haplogroups M and R into the America.
In conclusion, 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.
References
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.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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
posted
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.
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.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
The dental pattern of the paleoamericans does not deny their Negroid existence. Population Y was Negroid like the other ancient populations of the Americas.
Anthropologist Christy Turner identified two patterns, Sinodonty and Sundadonty, for East Asia, within the "Mongoloid dental complex"[1]. The latter is regarded as having a more generalised, Australoid morphology and having a longer ancestry than its offspring, Sinodonty.
Sino and Sunda refer to China and Sundaland, while 'dont' refers to teeth.
He found the Sundadont pattern in the Jōmon of Japan, Taiwanese aborigines, Filipinos, Indonesians, Thais, Borneans, Laotians, and Malaysians, and the Sinodont pattern in the inhabitants of China, Mongolia, eastern Siberia, Native Americans, and the Yayoi.
Sinodonty is a particular pattern of teeth common among Native Americans and some peoples in Asia, in particular the northern Han Chinese and some Japanese populations. The upper first two incisors are not aligned with the other teeth, but rotated a few degrees inward, and, moreover, they are shovel-shaped; the upper first premolar has one root (whereas the upper first premolar in Caucasians has normally two roots). The lower first molar in Sinodonts has three roots (whereas it has two roots in Caucasians).
In the 1990s, Turner's dental measurements were frequently mentioned as one of three new tools for studying origins and migrations of human populations. The other two were linguistic methods like Joseph Greenberg's mass comparison of vocabulary or Johanna Nichols's statistical study of language typology and its evolution, and genetic studies pioneered by Cavalli-Sforza.
The African type can be traced to the African type that lived in China. This Negro type was characterized by sindonty. The earliest examples of sindonty date back to the Choukoudian/Zhoudian Upper Cave type not the sundonty pattern which arrived in the Pacific with the classical mongoloid people found in Indonesia. The classical mongoloids entered Southeast Asia and the Pacific after African speaking Manding and Dravidian speaking people had already settled much of the Pacific. This is supported by the Sindonty pattern found among the Japanese ho have a Dravidian and African substratum in their language.
Secondly, archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien [Zhoudian], was of a Oceanic Negroid/Melanesoid " (p.163).
In conclusion, the sindonty pattern is an African feature. C.G. Turner's research makes it clear that the early Americans were sindonty not sundonty (see: Turner, "Teeth and prehistory in Asia, Scientific American,(Feb.1989) 88-96), in fact he places the origin of these sindonty people in Northern China at Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. An African influence in the rise of man in the Americas is clearly supported by the archaeological, craniometric, toponymic and linguistic evidence.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 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.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
Phenotypically Australoids are synonymous with negro. Chatters said that Kennewick man , Naia and Luzia were related to Pacific Islanders, Africans and Austrailoids, these people are called Negro .
Blacks were the first Mexicans as proven by the 10,000 year old Naia skeleton.The first Mexican Naia.Dr. Chatters in the Smithsonian Magazine, noted that “The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific.egro.] "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution." Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/#hexUIhxcwDxMkCAz.99
Black people were in America first. The academic community does recognize that the paleoindians were negroes: Australians, Africans or Melenesians, these are all negro people. I didn't make the paleoamericans negroes--it's their skeletons that tell us they were negroes. Here are articles that make it clear they were not mongoloid people.
See: 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 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
All of these papers are on-line. You can find them either at Academia.edu or Researchgate.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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
yes really, that is Djehuti, Tukular and Doug's definition of black
anybody dark skinned at a certain level of darkness.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
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
Chatters did not prove D1 came from Beringa This is all double talk. Chatters presented no archaeological, ancient DNA or skeletal remains to support his theory there was continuity between paleoamericans and modern mongoloid native Americans or Beringa DNA.
Chatters noted that: “. Paleoamericans exhibit longer, narrower crania and smaller, shorter, more projecting faces than later Native Americans (7). In nearly all cases, they are morphologically most similar to modern peoples of Africa, Australia, and the southern Pacific Rim (7–9). Polymorphic dental traits currently found in East Asia also distinguish later Native Americans (10), who tend to exhibit such specialized (Sinodont) traits as winged, shovel-shaped upper incisors, three rooted lower first molars, and small or absent third molars; from Paleoamericans, who exhibit a less specialized (Sundadont) morphology (7). These differences suggest that America was colonized by separate migration events from different parts of Eurasia (11) or by multiple colonization events from Beringia (12), or that evolutionary changes occurred in the Americas after colonization (13). ”
Chatters continued that, “HN5/48 is among the small group of Paleoamerican skeletons, a group that is morphologically distinct from Native Americans. We extracted DNA from the skeleton’s upper right third molar and analyzed the mtDNA using methods developed for poorly preserved skeletal elements, with independent replication. The mtDNA haplogroup for the HN skeletal remains was determined through restriction fragment analysis, direct Sanger sequencing, and second-generation sequencing after target enrichment. The AluI 5176 site loss, in combination with Sanger and Illumina sequence data, confirm its placement in haplogroup D, subhaplogroup D1 (Fig. 3). Subhaplogroup D1 is derived from an Asian lineage but occurs only in the Americas, having probably developed in Beringia after divergence from other Asian populations (1).D1 is one of the founding lineages in the Americas (1). Subhaplogroup D1 occurs in 10.5% of extant Native Americans (23), with a high frequency of 29% in indigenous people from Chile and Argentina (24). This suggests that HN5/48 descended from the population that carried the D1 lineage to South America. The discovery of a member of subhaplogroup D1 in Central America, ~4000 km southeast of any other pre–10-ka DNA in the Americas, greatly extends the geographic distribution of Pleistocene-age Beringian mtDNA in the Western Hemisphere.”
Here we see that Chatters says that D1 is only found in America. If it is only found in America it can not be an Asian haplogroup. Chatters is just making a guess. He can not support this guess because there is no skeletons from Beringa that carry D1 nor is D1 found in Asia.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic