posted
I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.
The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.
The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.
The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.
The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu) type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.
By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk. The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.
It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.
By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.
By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims. The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.
This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.
The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.
Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.
You make it seem as there was a GAP between the populations who migrated OOA and the later so called Mongoloids who you say settled Asia.
First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia. These are all still primarily black folks. Over the same time period these populations also expanded into India and central Asia and the extreme North of Asia. These populations expanded into Asia over the period between 90 and 50,000 years ago. All of these people are still primarily dark skinned people. Around 20,000 - 15,000 years ago, lighter skin (white skin) began to develop among the populations in the extreme northern and central regions of Asia and Europe. However, even at this time there was still a large population of blacks in all parts of Asia and elsewhere. It has been during the last 5,000 years that these populations have begun to become more predominant in many parts of the globe and the last 1,000 has been the period of the greatest expansion.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia.
Of course.
quote:These Blacks were the Australian type
Australian aborigine have some unique ethnic features, then there are polynesian, south Asian, Melanesian.....who also have their own unique features.
quote:The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia.
Please specify the following.
- the ethnic groups of coastal Melanesians you are referring to.
- the genetic lineages that can confirm they are of direct descendants of recent Africans.
- the time period that would qualify as recent.
quote: The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.
In terms of skulls and skin, it is supposed to be qualified by prominent cheekbones and epicanthic folds, but both of these features are native to Africa, and so do not denote/determine phylo-genetic relationships.
quote: The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp),
This is non-sequitur, and typifies how those who think in terms of race, cannot sustain a logical discourse.
Asia was not settled *from* Australia or by Australians.
Australia was settled by migrations from Africa, to Arabia and Southern Asia and thence to Australia, some 60kya.
quote: I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.
I agree with you here.
quote:The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa.
I do not agree with appelation of Anu to the diminuative Blacks of Southern Asia.
It is not a native appelation, and it creates confusion between three distinct groups of people.
The native Ainu of Japan - who are neither Black nor African, nor 'pygmy' [small].
The Anu of Ancient Egypt - who bear no proven relationship to the Japanese.
And the Melanesians, who are distinct from both the Japanese Ainu and the Ancient Egyptian Anu.
Nothing relates them accept a similar sounding name, which is a triffling coincidence around which you build a monumentally overblown fairy-tale.
quote: I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp.
Go ahead and make up your own 'classes' [pseudo-anthropology], meanwhile there is no specific lineological relationship between 34 thousand year old Iberians, 5 thousand year old Egpytians, and current day Ainu of Japan.
Indeed it would be hard to pic three more arbitrary and unrelated groups...if you were trying to do so.
quote:Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.
This is your personal mythology declaration, no aspect of the above has been demonstrated as fact from your post.
quote:The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu)
More fake-ed up typologies. How is a 'bushman' [do you mean the south AFrican San] a proto-Bantu?
quote: type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk.
It is true that CroMagnon 'homo sapiens', replaced Neanderthal, not 'homo sapiens.
Don't know what this has to do with bushman [south african hunter gatherer] and proto bantu [1st speakers of bantu languages]. (?)
quote: The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.
I don't think African migrations can be broken down so neatly.
Everyone on earth is ultimately either African or the product of some kind of African migration.
quote:By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia.
You do realize that some race-typologists claim that Bushman are mon-go-loid, which simply means they have prominent cheekbones, and epicanthic folds, so....what makes 'bushman' as opposed to 'mongoloid' according to Dr. Winters?
quote: The classical mongoloids
You must really like this term. It's really just the equivalent of true negro, another white supremacist race-ruse.
It simply seeks to contrict East Asian to a stereotype of the most extreme ethnic features.
What is a non-classic mongoloid?
What is and un-true negroid?
Meanwhile all 'caucaZoid' are *real* caucasoid, no matter how different the pheneotypes so classified may be.
You should stop repeating after Eurocentrists.
quote: The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.
Non sequitur.
What doe the fake race typology of classical mongoloid has to do with Mesopotamia or Sumeria?
quote:It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward.
You must have set a new record for the use of the term classical mongoloid.
quote:By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.
I thought you claimed the Shang were Mandingo, or something?
quote:The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.
All different peoples, could be 'kushites' in any language context in which kushite means blacks, yes.
quote:These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas.
Which takes us back to.
Please provide specifics.
- time of origin - which ethnic groups originate at this place and time. - what genetic lineages can denote the relationships you claim.
My opinion is that you are a clever man who enjoys making up your own fake history, and then challenging people to debunk it.
In a way it's fitting, since this is basically what Eurocentrists quite systematically do, and have done for the past few centuries now. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde your chronology is useless.
You make it seem as there was a GAP between the populations who migrated OOA and the later so called Mongoloids who you say settled Asia.
First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia. These are all still primarily black folks. Over the same time period these populations also expanded into India and central Asia and the extreme North of Asia. These populations expanded into Asia over the period between 90 and 50,000 years ago. All of these people are still primarily dark skinned people. Around 20,000 - 15,000 years ago, lighter skin (white skin) began to develop among the populations in the extreme northern and central regions of Asia and Europe. However, even at this time there was still a large population of blacks in all parts of Asia and elsewhere. It has been during the last 5,000 years that these populations have begun to become more predominant in many parts of the globe and the last 1,000 has been the period of the greatest expansion.
This all hypothetical. Please provide any skeletal evidence supporting this migration.
quote:Doug: First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia.
quote:Clyde:This all hypothetical. Please provide any skeletal evidence supporting this migration.
There is very recent genetic evidence from your good friend Kisivild.
Geneticists re-examining the first settlement of Australia and Papua-New Guinea by modern humans have concluded that the two islands were reached some 50,000 years ago by a single group of people who remained in substantial or total isolation until recent times The results show that Aborigines and the people of Papua-New Guinea share several ancient genetic lineages, indicating that both are descended from a single founding population.
All Australian Aborigines, at least to judge by the genetic samples in hand, are descended from this founding population, meaning that no further immigrants reached Australia in numbers large enough to leave a genetic trace until the modern era.
The findings, by Toomas Kisivild and a group of geneticists and archaeologists situated mostly at the University of Cambridge in England, are reported today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/science/08abor.html?pagewanted=print
^ Please provide any evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope, aliens from other planets was parents of human`s white race. The russians have more of all alien`s blood because they was first in space in everything.
Posts: 46 | From: island Nova Zemlia (North Icy ocean) | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This what I said. I said that the Australians represent the early settlers of the Pacific. I also acknowledged that the Hill Melanesians are probably decendants of the ancient settlers of Asia, but the coastal Melanesians are of recent African origin and show less genetic unity with the Hill Melanesians and Australians. See this article which discuss the molecular relationship between the Hill and Coastal Oceanians:
Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-.
.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Doug: First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia.
quote:Clyde:This all hypothetical. Please provide any skeletal evidence supporting this migration.
There is very recent genetic evidence from your good friend Kisivild.
Geneticists re-examining the first settlement of Australia and Papua-New Guinea by modern humans have concluded that the two islands were reached some 50,000 years ago by a single group of people who remained in substantial or total isolation until recent times The results show that Aborigines and the people of Papua-New Guinea share several ancient genetic lineages, indicating that both are descended from a single founding population.
All Australian Aborigines, at least to judge by the genetic samples in hand, are descended from this founding population, meaning that no further immigrants reached Australia in numbers large enough to leave a genetic trace until the modern era.
The findings, by Toomas Kisivild and a group of geneticists and archaeologists situated mostly at the University of Cambridge in England, are reported today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/science/08abor.html?pagewanted=print
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This what I said. I said that the Australians represent the early settlers of the Pacific.
This is true of Australia and New Guinea too.
I thought you had implied that Asia was settled from Australia.
The reason that Australians and New Guineans are thought to represent original Out of Africa migrants who entered Australia from South Asia is because they share deep rooted lineages with South Asians.
quote:I also acknowledged that the Hill Melanesians are probably decendants of the ancient settlers of Asia, but the coastal Melanesians are of recent African origin and show less genetic unity with the Hill Melanesians and Australians. See this article which discuss the molecular relationship between the Hill and Coastal Oceanians:
Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-.
.
Ok. Here is what this study says...
Analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nonrecombining Y chromosome (NRY) variation in the same populations are sometimes concordant but sometimes discordant. Perhaps the most dramatic example known of the latter concerns Polynesians, in which about 94% of Polynesian mtDNAs are of East Asian origin, while about 66% of Polynesian Y chromosomes are of Melanesian origin. Here we analyze on a genome-wide scale, to our knowledge for the first time, the origins of the autosomal gene pool of Polynesians by screening 377 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci in 47 Pacific Islanders and compare the results with those obtained from 44 Chinese and 24 individuals from Papua New Guinea. Our data indicate that on average about 79% of the Polynesian autosomal gene pool is of East Asian origin and 21% is of Melanesian origin. The genetic data thus suggest a dual origin of Polynesians with a high East Asian but also considerable Melanesian component
^ I don't see the part about recent African origin of Melanesian, 'coastal or otherwise'.
Can you help us see what you are talking about?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol I will not waste my time discussing the molecular evidence linking the coastal Melanesians and Africans in this thread. It is frequently discussed by the experts:
Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
I may write an article on this topic for a genetics journal where experts can judge my work as opposed to novices who read articles--parrot what they read--but lack the interpretative skills to deduce from same the necessary information to make and test hypotheses.
After the paper is published I may send you an e-mail where you can find the article.
You forget, any article that discusses genetics nust have colateral evidence from linguistics and anthropology/ archaeology to support it.
Population genetics can not stand by itself. This is what you fail to understand. Research is based on hypothesis testing. Hypotheses have been confirmed that the Dravidians and Melanesians are of African origin. You can not change this reality by saying that no relationship exist.
As I have tried to explain to you guys earlier--molecular evidence is going to support same. You can holler all you want but as researchers become aware of the actual archaeological and linguistic data supporting an African origin for these people they will publish data supporting this reality which they have assumed to be outliners and therefore remained unpublished.
.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia.
Of course.
quote:These Blacks were the Australian type
Australian aborigine have some unique ethnic features, then there are polynesian, south Asian, Melanesian.....who also have their own unique features.
quote:The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia.
Please specify the following.
- the ethnic groups of coastal Melanesians you are referring to.
- the genetic lineages that can confirm they are of direct descendants of recent Africans.
- the time period that would qualify as recent.
quote: The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.
In terms of skulls and skin, it is supposed to be qualified by prominent cheekbones and epicanthic folds, but both of these features are native to Africa, and so do not denote/determine phylo-genetic relationships.
quote: The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp),
This is non-sequitur, and typifies how those who think in terms of race, cannot sustain a logical discourse.
Asia was not settled *from* Australia or by Australians.
Australia was settled by migrations from Africa, to Arabia and Southern Asia and thence to Australia, some 60kya.
quote: I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.
I agree with you here.
quote:The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa.
I do not agree with appelation of Anu to the diminuative Blacks of Southern Asia.
It is not a native appelation, and it creates confusion between three distinct groups of people.
The native Ainu of Japan - who are neither Black nor African, nor 'pygmy' [small].
The Anu of Ancient Egypt - who bear no proven relationship to the Japanese.
And the Melanesians, who are distinct from both the Japanese Ainu and the Ancient Egyptian Anu.
Nothing relates them accept a similar sounding name, which is a triffling coincidence around which you build a monumentally overblown fairy-tale.
quote: I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp.
Go ahead and make up your own 'classes' [pseudo-anthropology], meanwhile there is no specific lineological relationship between 34 thousand year old Iberians, 5 thousand year old Egpytians, and current day Ainu of Japan.
Indeed it would be hard to pic three more arbitrary and unrelated groups...if you were trying to do so.
quote:Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.
This is your personal mythology declaration, no aspect of the above has been demonstrated as fact from your post.
quote:The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu)
More fake-ed up typologies. How is a 'bushman' [do you mean the south AFrican San] a proto-Bantu?
quote: type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk.
It is true that CroMagnon 'homo sapiens', replaced Neanderthal, not 'homo sapiens.
Don't know what this has to do with bushman [south african hunter gatherer] and proto bantu [1st speakers of bantu languages]. (?)
quote: The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.
I don't think African migrations can be broken down so neatly.
Everyone on earth is ultimately either African or the product of some kind of African migration.
quote:By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia.
You do realize that some race-typologists claim that Bushman are mon-go-loid, which simply means they have prominent cheekbones, and epicanthic folds, so....what makes 'bushman' as opposed to 'mongoloid' according to Dr. Winters?
quote: The classical mongoloids
You must really like this term. It's really just the equivalent of true negro, another white supremacist race-ruse.
It simply seeks to contrict East Asian to a stereotype of the most extreme ethnic features.
What is a non-classic mongoloid?
What is and un-true negroid?
Meanwhile all 'caucaZoid' are *real* caucasoid, no matter how different the pheneotypes so classified may be.
You should stop repeating after Eurocentrists.
quote: The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.
Non sequitur.
What doe the fake race typology of classical mongoloid has to do with Mesopotamia or Sumeria?
quote:It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward.
You must have set a new record for the use of the term classical mongoloid.
quote:By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.
I thought you claimed the Shang were Mandingo, or something?
quote:The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.
All different peoples, could be 'kushites' in any language context in which kushite means blacks, yes.
quote:These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas.
Which takes us back to.
Please provide specifics.
- time of origin - which ethnic groups originate at this place and time. - what genetic lineages can denote the relationships you claim.
My opinion is that you are a clever man who enjoys making up your own fake history, and then challenging people to debunk it.
In a way it's fitting, since this is basically what Eurocentrists quite systematically do, and have done for the past few centuries now.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Clyde your chronology is useless.
You make it seem as there was a GAP between the populations who migrated OOA and the later so called Mongoloids who you say settled Asia.
First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia. These are all still primarily black folks. Over the same time period these populations also expanded into India and central Asia and the extreme North of Asia. These populations expanded into Asia over the period between 90 and 50,000 years ago. All of these people are still primarily dark skinned people. Around 20,000 - 15,000 years ago, lighter skin (white skin) began to develop among the populations in the extreme northern and central regions of Asia and Europe. However, even at this time there was still a large population of blacks in all parts of Asia and elsewhere. It has been during the last 5,000 years that these populations have begun to become more predominant in many parts of the globe and the last 1,000 has been the period of the greatest expansion.
There was a gap which is supported by the skeletal evidence.
If Asians are decendants of the first migrations out of Africa, why don't they carry the ancient lineages associated with the Australians?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Rasol I will not waste my time discussing the molecular evidence linking the coastal Melanesians and Africans in this thread.
This comment is illogical and dishonest.
It's illogical because if there were molecular evidence in your favor, for your thesis, then it cannot be a waste of time to provide it. The waste of time occurs when you write or paste massive blobs of irrelevant spam that do not answer questions or provide evidence.
It's dishonest because you try to rewrite the question, removing the key word RECENT in order to -HIDE- from the material point at issue.
Where is the genetic evidence of *RECENT* migration from Africa to Melanesia?
As for evidence: you have provided zip, nada, nothing, none.
Therefore, you are wasting your own time.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: This what I said. I said that the Australians represent the early settlers of the Pacific.
This is true of Australia and New Guinea too.
I thought you had implied that Asia was settled from Australia.
The reason that Australians and New Guineans are thought to represent original Out of Africa migrants who entered Australia from South Asia is because they share deep rooted lineages with South Asians.
quote:I also acknowledged that the Hill Melanesians are probably decendants of the ancient settlers of Asia, but the coastal Melanesians are of recent African origin and show less genetic unity with the Hill Melanesians and Australians. See this article which discuss the molecular relationship between the Hill and Coastal Oceanians:
Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-.
.
Ok. Here is what this study says...
Analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nonrecombining Y chromosome (NRY) variation in the same populations are sometimes concordant but sometimes discordant. Perhaps the most dramatic example known of the latter concerns Polynesians, in which about 94% of Polynesian mtDNAs are of East Asian origin, while about 66% of Polynesian Y chromosomes are of Melanesian origin. Here we analyze on a genome-wide scale, to our knowledge for the first time, the origins of the autosomal gene pool of Polynesians by screening 377 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci in 47 Pacific Islanders and compare the results with those obtained from 44 Chinese and 24 individuals from Papua New Guinea. Our data indicate that on average about 79% of the Polynesian autosomal gene pool is of East Asian origin and 21% is of Melanesian origin. The genetic data thus suggest a dual origin of Polynesians with a high East Asian but also considerable Melanesian component
^ I don't see the part about recent African origin of Melanesian, 'coastal or otherwise'.
Can you help us see what you are talking about?
You have misquoted me. I said that Researchers have proven that the coastal and highland Melanesians have different DNA.
Article
quote:
The admixture estimates also depend critically on the choice of “parental” populations. Linguistic evidence strongly suggests that Taiwan was the ancestral homeland of the proto-Austronesians23 who ultimately colonized Polynesia, which in turn suggests that Taiwan Aborigines may be a more appropriate “Asian parental” population than Han Chinese.
However, mtDNA and NRY evidence suggests further bottlenecks in aboriginal Taiwanese1, 24 and that Han Chinese and other East Asian groups are highly similar to one another and are as similar (or even more similar) to Polynesians than are aboriginal Taiwanese.4 Thus, the use of a different East Asian group is unlikely to change the admixture estimate.
With regard to the “Melanesian parental” population, the admixture between Polynesian ancestors and Melanesians took most likely place somewhere in coastal/island New Guinea (probably the Bismarck Archipelago9, 10) because Austronesians arrived in Melanesia by boat, so it may be argued that a coastal/island New Guinea population would be more appropriate than a highland New Guinea population as the parental Melanesian population. However, coastal/island New Guinea populations usually exhibit some proportion of Asian mtDNA and/or NRY types4, 9 as result of genetic admixture, whereas non-Austronesian-speaking highland New Guinea groups usually lack Asian-specific markers resulting from a lack of such admixture.4, 25 Therefore, Highland New Guineans provide the best available estimate of a nonadmixed Melanesian population.
I never said these researchers claimed that the coastal Melanesians were originally of African origin. This is my conclusion based on the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that preceed Han and Classical mongoloid skeletons.
I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.
quote:Hypotheses have been confirmed that the Dravidians and Melanesians are of African origin. You can not change this reality by saying that no relationship exist.
This is another boring, childish, phony argument from Dr. Winters.
Relationship between Africans and Melanesians is as follows: Africans, Asians, Europeans, Melanesians, Australians, and Native Americans are all the same *species* - homo sapien sapien, which originate in Africa 130K plus years ago.
There is no specific ancestral ie - ethnic - relationship between Africans and Melanesians and or Dravidians.
Melanesians and Dravidians are *NOT* recent migrants from Africa.
Indeed Melanesian and African they are among the *least related* populations on earth.
This lack of relationship between Melanesian {oceania} and Africans can be shown:
^ And explained:
* graph a -> shows the African trunk, or root of all humanity, and then the order in which the base non african populations split from africans.
1st all non africans.
2nd pacific islanders from eurasians
3rd europeans split from east asians
4th americans split from east asians.
* graph b -> shows present and resultant genetic distance, confirming the relative antiquity of the separation of africans and pacific islander, and the relative significance of later admixture in europeans, from africans. In graph b, melanesia and africa are the least related populations in the world.
^ Dr. Winters, what is the purpose of lying about Dravidian origins?
Why do you do it?
Your lie is transparent and obvious.
No one on this forum has bought into it in over a year.
No educated person ever will.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said these researchers claimed that the coastal Melanesians were originally of African origin.
^ No, you said it yourself: "Coastal Melanesian are of recent African origin".
I am saying that the research contradicts you.
Also you site the research in support of your claims, then turn around and state that you are not claiming the research support you, which only means that it is *misleading* of you to cite research, which does not support you, to begin with.
lol lol lol.
To watch you spin yourself in circles arguing, is like watching a math professor argue that 2x2 = 5.
We both know you're lying.
The fun of it, is really in finding out who is dumb enough to fall for it. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Throughout this debate you have failed to dispute the linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence supporting this relationship.
Frankly I don't care if you ever accept the truth that Dravidians and Africans are genetically related I will let my future publications on these theme that appear in genetics journal validate and confirm the African origin of the Dravidians.
The topic of this thread is the classical mongoloids not the Dravidians . So, please present any skeletal evidence that Han and Classical mongoloid skeletons preceed the Neolithic Melanoid skeletons.
Coastal Melanesians carry more East Asian genes than the Hill Melanesians who represent the ancient population.
Please explain how the genetic data disputes a recent origin for the coastal Melanesians when we have evidence that 1) Neolithic Melanoid/Negro people were living in East Asia; and 2) the Lapita culture shows that migration from East Asia took place that led to a new population arriving on the coastal areas of near Oceania which may reflect the settlement of the region by this new population of Melanoids/Negroes.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Throughout this debate you have failed to dispute the linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence supporting this relationship.
There isn't any.
Your entire thesis is ridiculous.
At some level, you apparently know this.
This is why when i ask you for straight answers, you never have any, but provide only empty rhetoric.
I only engage you for the fun of it.
There is nothing *serious* here to discuss. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The topic of this thread is the classical mongoloids not the Dravidians . So, please present any skeletal evidence that Han and Classical mongoloid skeletons preceed the Neolithic Melanoid skeletons.
^ I love the way you ask nonsensical questions, and challenge others to make sense of them with the answer.
Not possible.
quote:Coastal Melanesians carry more East Asian genes than the Hill Melanesians who represent the ancient population.
Sure, but for the last time, what does this have to do with your claim that coastal Melanesians carry RECENT AFRICAN ancestry? ?
You are quite hilarious when you make unsubstantiated claims and then try to talk *around* the fact that you have no evidence.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please explain how the genetic data disputes a recent origin for the coastal Melanesians
This is another tell-tale sign of your dishonest argument.
You can't even repeat -correctly- your own claims, because they are not defensible.
You claimed a recent *AFRICAN* origin, have you forgotten?
In your above statement you leave out african.
Why?
Because you can't prove this.
Why?
Because it isn't true.
So all you do is try to cover for outre' claims with bogus insinuation-arguments. [withdraw the claim, but still imply the claim]
As for the genetic data, you have already had it shown to you, so I will continue to explain it.
The main Y chromosome lineages of Africa are:
A
B
and.....
E
There is no A,B, or E in melanesia..... therefore Melanesians are not of recent African origin.
Melanesian lineages are 100% C/D or F derived.
C, D and F = everything that is not A,B or E
[all lineages such as R1b, or J are derived from base lineages such as F]
The reason that Melanesians are at such a great genetic distance from Africans is that their ancestors migrated out of Africa, along with the ancestors of Europeans and NorthEast Asians, 80kya ago.
However they are so far away geographically from Africa, that they have had little if any biological interaction with Africans since the initial outmigration.
This is quite unlike Europeans who have mixed in with Africans repeatedly *the neolithic*, Moorish times, etc..
That's why Europeans are closer to Africans than Melanesians are.
This is a material fact, that falsifies your entire thesis....
Given this reality, your jabbering on about classic Mongoloids is utterly meaningless.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.
Where are your references to these skeletons? And why does that present a "special" case of recent African migrations to Asia? Aren't the skeletons of Papuans, Australian and other South East Asian aboriginal populations ALSO negroid? So if these people with so-called negroid features have ALWAYS been in Asia, then what is the point of claiming that such features are NEW to the region?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.
.
Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous, not only because of nonsensical terminology but because the basic fact is that blacks were the predominant population in South East Asia and the Pacific up until relatively recent times (last 500 years). So no RECENT arrival of blacks is necessary to explain the presence of blacks there because they have ALWAYS been there.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous
Winters needs to look up and study the following concept:
reification: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.
ex: Anu, who are supposed to be Ancient Egyptian and Melanesian...and, Japanese, and Cro-Magnon Europeans...... who once had a great civilisation.
^ Pure re-if-ic-a-tion.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, the problem I have with the classification of "mongoloid" is the exact same with "negroid"!!
First of all, there seems to be a blief by some prominent members in this forum of there being a solid division in skin color.-- That one is either 'black' or 'white' with no in between. This is nonsense because skin color varies and grades evenly. The label 'black' is usually used for people who are very dark in complexion whereas 'white' is used for people who are very pale yet what about those are neither that dark or that pale?? I know all labels for skin color are subjective, but does it make sense to call any person of who isn't fair-skinned black? We know that very dark or black skin came first and was the original color of homo-sapiens who originated in the tropics, specifically Africa. We know that as populations in Eurasia migrated out of the tropics and into northern climes they began to loose their pigment with some populations losing more dramatically than others. So what about those peoples who lost pigmentation but are not fair-skinned and are usually refered to as 'brown' such as Inuit (Eskimos) who supplemented their vitamin D with marine meat as well as East Asian groups who moved back into the tropics like Taiwanese and Filipinos?...
Or Altaic people like Turks and Mongols?..
Or even Tibetans?..
...
This seems to reflect a double standard. We know black peoples vary in features, so why can't east Asians? It seems some folks here want to go by the 'true mongoloid' or as other Western scholars call it the "classic mongoloid" look. To which 'true' east asians must look like the below..
This is like saying 'true' blacks can only look like Alek Wek!
Posts: 26249 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ All racialists wield the same double-edged sword, as they use typologies to attempt to define history on their own ideological terms.
The manner in which racialist regard the Ainu of Japan provide and example of principal.
White supremacists claim the Ainu of Japan are 'caucasian.'~
Winters and Marc Washington claim they are 'negroe'~.
Both views would seek to appropriate indigineous Japanese culture and people into mythological racial view:
For the white supremacists - 'caucasian' can be claimed as responsible for essentially any and every civilisation.
For Winters/Washington - the entire world can be made to consist of 'global negroe' civilisation.
The method by which they try to assert his, is really what this thread is about.
Mongolian is and ethnicity. It is not a race.
It may be that many people who have 'slanted' eyes and high cheekbones share and ancestral relationship. But there are also East Asians who do not have these pronounced features, but who are still related to those who do.
As for skin color - the reason that most East Asians do not typically define themselves ethnically in terms of skin color is because it varies too much.
Europeans define themselves as white, because they tend to be significantly paler than non Europeans.
Relatively, they are at and extreme in terms of skin color.
Africans define themselves black and/or red, or as Blacks relative to light skinned 'red' Eurasian, because Africans tend to be dark, and Eurasian tend to be light.
Asians tend to have both intermediate colors and tend to vary from as dark as most Africans to as light as most Europeans.
So it never made sense for them to define themselves in terms of color.
I've had a variation of this conversation with almost every member of this forum, so I will repeat....
Ethnonyms, whether based on color or anything else are just subjective social labels.
They are not universal, nor are they internally consistent, nor scientific in any way.
Any attempt to objectify them will fail.
This goes for terms like Black, or Jew, or Oriental, or Blonde, or Semite, or Hispanic, or Arab.....all subjective social labels.
I am not aware of any group of Asians who call themselves classic Mongoloids.
In and English context the word is ugly - it describes a disease.
This term was invented by white racists.
Dr. Winters world-view was invented by white racists...he simply tries to modify it, or at worst, reverse it.
In my opinion this means and intelligent man is wasting his time with a foolish act, but hey...he's the "Doctor", so.....
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Africans define themselves black and/or red, or as Blacks relative to light skinned 'red' Eurasian, because Africans tend to be dark, and Eurasian tend to be light.
There are plenty of Africans that don't identify themselves by a color. You need to get out of South Africa, yet alone your house more.
quote: As for skin color - the reason that most East Asians do not typically define themselves ethnically in terms of skin color is because it varies too much.
And Africans don't vary in color? You're dumb.
So folks the caterwauling South African is now saying that Asians have so much more diversity than Africans in skin shade that they have a valid reason for not using color to identify themselves.
And that Africans should use color to designate themselves because they themselves don't vary in terms of skin color like Asians. Obviously this fool doesn't get out much.
Africans don't vary in color so they should use a color to identify themselves. What a pitiful beatdown wretch you are. The whites in your country really worked you over psychologically.
Po, sorry caterwauling thang. : )
PS. Now watch him scream like a bitch: "Civil Discussants please, please, please don't listen to him".
"Civil Discussants" the only type of person who talks like that is someone who goes dateless constantly. LOOOOOL! : )
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: rasol wrote: There are plenty of Africans that don't identify themselves by a color.
^ I never said otherwise, so this comment is as dumb as all your other posts.
This is why I generally ignore you.
You merely seek to run interference with intelligent conversation by interjecting moronic remarks. And even in this dubious respect you *overestimate* your talent.
quote:You need to get out of South Africa
You need to learn how to read, and stop trying to pick pointless arguments by being stupid.
Now, I can always travel to different countries, but when can you stop being stupid?.
quote:Arygle's retardation rants: Now watch him scream like a bitch.
^ translation: Now observe Arygle's tantrum tossing via obscenity, like the emotionally stunted attention seeking child he is.
quote:LooooL
^ Yes it's funny how stupid, vulgar and juvenile you are. On this pont we agree.
Anyway, you got the two seconds worth of attention your childish mind craves... ... happy now?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the reason why the bio history of humans in Asia is so debated:
quote: The fossil record for the EMHs in eastern Eurasia is widely scattered, fragmentary, and frequently poorly dated. The oldest modern human remains may well be the juvenile cranium from Niah Cave, Sarawak, dated to ≈45–39 ka cal BP (calendrical years before present) by direct U-series and associated radiocarbon dates (4). Although morphologically modern, it appears to have close affinities with Late Pleistocene Chinese and recent Australomelanesian populations (3, 5). The next oldest east Asian modern human remains are the juvenile femur and tibia from Yamashita-cho, Okinawa associated with a 14C date of ≈32 ka radiocarbon years before present (14C BP); although attributable to modern humans based on the incipient development of a femoral pilaster, the remains are otherwise undiagnostic and similar to Late Pleistocene juvenile femora and tibiae generally (6, 7). Of a similar age are the fragmentary commingled remains from Fa Hein, Sri Lanka dated to ≈30 ka 14C BP, for which only the dentition has been described (8, 9).
These Asian EMHs, dated to ≥30 ka 14C BP, are joined by the fragmentary Batadomba lena remains from Sri Lanka dated to ≈29 ka 14C BP (10) and the partial skeleton from Moh Khiew, Thailand dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP (11). Further north and east, subsequent samples, such as the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave remains from China dated to 24–29 ka 14C BP, the Pinza-Abu fragments from Okinawa dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP, and the Minatogawa sample from Okinawa dated to ≈18 ka 14C BP (12–14), postdate the appearance of morphologically modern humans in the region.
There are other probably Late Pleistocene human remains from China. However, the association of the Salawusu human bones with well dated but substantially older geological deposits is currently debated (15). Ziyang 1 may be associated with fauna 14C dated to 32–44 ka 14C BP (3, 16), and the southern Chinese Liujiang fossil may predate 60 ka BP, but questions remain as to its original context (17).
It is therefore apparent that the chronology and biology of the earliest modern humans in eastern Eurasia is currently poorly known, from the scarcity and fragmentary nature of the remains and/or uncertainties regarding the geological antiquity of the more complete specimens. It is in this context that the Tianyuan Cave partial skeleton acquires significance.
There aren't many remains of any anatomically modern humans from > 50ky in East Asia to really study. Given this fact, much of what we have about East Asian populations in that remote time period is based on genetic distances of modern populations. This lack of evidence is also the reason for many of the claims that East Asians developed from different species of early hominids because of the discovery of hominid remains in East Asia.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all the original migrants out of Africa had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
Fijians
Australians
A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.
Where are your references to these skeletons? And why does that present a "special" case of recent African migrations to Asia? Aren't the skeletons of Papuans, Australian and other South East Asian aboriginal populations ALSO negroid? So if these people with so-called negroid features have ALWAYS been in Asia, then what is the point of claiming that such features are NEW to the region?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.
.
Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous, not only because of nonsensical terminology but because the basic fact is that blacks were the predominant population in South East Asia and the Pacific up until relatively recent times (last 500 years). So no RECENT arrival of blacks is necessary to explain the presence of blacks there because they have ALWAYS been there.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Here is the reason why the bio history of humans in Asia is so debated:
quote: The fossil record for the EMHs in eastern Eurasia is widely scattered, fragmentary, and frequently poorly dated. The oldest modern human remains may well be the juvenile cranium from Niah Cave, Sarawak, dated to ≈45–39 ka cal BP (calendrical years before present) by direct U-series and associated radiocarbon dates (4). Although morphologically modern, it appears to have close affinities with Late Pleistocene Chinese and recent Australomelanesian populations (3, 5). The next oldest east Asian modern human remains are the juvenile femur and tibia from Yamashita-cho, Okinawa associated with a 14C date of ≈32 ka radiocarbon years before present (14C BP); although attributable to modern humans based on the incipient development of a femoral pilaster, the remains are otherwise undiagnostic and similar to Late Pleistocene juvenile femora and tibiae generally (6, 7). Of a similar age are the fragmentary commingled remains from Fa Hein, Sri Lanka dated to ≈30 ka 14C BP, for which only the dentition has been described (8, 9).
These Asian EMHs, dated to ≥30 ka 14C BP, are joined by the fragmentary Batadomba lena remains from Sri Lanka dated to ≈29 ka 14C BP (10) and the partial skeleton from Moh Khiew, Thailand dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP (11). Further north and east, subsequent samples, such as the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave remains from China dated to 24–29 ka 14C BP, the Pinza-Abu fragments from Okinawa dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP, and the Minatogawa sample from Okinawa dated to ≈18 ka 14C BP (12–14), postdate the appearance of morphologically modern humans in the region.
There are other probably Late Pleistocene human remains from China. However, the association of the Salawusu human bones with well dated but substantially older geological deposits is currently debated (15). Ziyang 1 may be associated with fauna 14C dated to 32–44 ka 14C BP (3, 16), and the southern Chinese Liujiang fossil may predate 60 ka BP, but questions remain as to its original context (17).
It is therefore apparent that the chronology and biology of the earliest modern humans in eastern Eurasia is currently poorly known, from the scarcity and fragmentary nature of the remains and/or uncertainties regarding the geological antiquity of the more complete specimens. It is in this context that the Tianyuan Cave partial skeleton acquires significance.
There aren't many remains of any anatomically modern humans from > 50ky in East Asia to really study. Given this fact, much of what we have about East Asian populations in that remote time period is based on genetic distances of modern populations. This lack of evidence is also the reason for many of the claims that East Asians developed from different species of early hominids because of the discovery of hominid remains in East Asia.
There is no real controversy surrounding the skeletons of East Asians. The oldest skeletons show individuals related to the Aborigine type.
The Chinese try to surround these skeletons with controversy because they have nothing to do with the Han, they are of various Negroes.
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 Zhoukoudian was of a Oceanic Negroid/ Melanesoid " type (p.163). The date of these skeletons would associate them with the Bushmen migration out of Africa, often associated with the Natufians.
The Negroes associated with the Neolithic cultures of East Asia show affinity to most contemporary Africans moreso then the Zhoukoudian type which resembles the EMH which existed in the Middle East around the same time as the Chinese Negroes.
quote:
The available eastern Eurasian EMHs from the sites of Batadomba lena, Moh Khiew, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, and Minatogawa date to between ≈28 and ≈18 ka 14C BP. To provide a broader Late Pleistocene framework, they are compared with four western Old World samples (Asian, European, and north African): (i) late archaic humans (Neandertals); (ii) MPMHs from Haua Fteah, Qafzeh and Skhul; (iii) EMHs dated to between ≈29 and 37 ka 14C BP, and (iv) MUP (≈20 to ≈28 ka 14C BP) modern humans. Few of the traits of comparison used are derived for the Neandertals (44), and therefore the Neandertals should represent late archaic Homo generally for the purposes here; such assessments need to be reevaluated when adequate late archaic eastern Eurasian remains are known.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: First of all the original migrants out of Africa had different features than the contemporary Africans.
Here is an Australian
Here is a contemporary Africans
You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.
Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\
Fijians
Australians
quote:A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
no, they do have some cucasoid feautres like the long hair and also they are too broad to resemble to even the Pygmies.
The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].
The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.
There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].
The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.
Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.
References 1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.
2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.
3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.
4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.
5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).
6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76
7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.
8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.
9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.
10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.
11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.
12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).
13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.
.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.
Where are your references to these skeletons? And why does that present a "special" case of recent African migrations to Asia? Aren't the skeletons of Papuans, Australian and other South East Asian aboriginal populations ALSO negroid? So if these people with so-called negroid features have ALWAYS been in Asia, then what is the point of claiming that such features are NEW to the region?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.
.
Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous, not only because of nonsensical terminology but because the basic fact is that blacks were the predominant population in South East Asia and the Pacific up until relatively recent times (last 500 years). So no RECENT arrival of blacks is necessary to explain the presence of blacks there because they have ALWAYS been there.
you forgot the Arabs, who migrated outside of Africa via Y Haplogroup F.
Posts: 1106 | From: Puerto Rico | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: First of all the original migrants out of Africa had different features than the contemporary Africans.
^ Your puzzlement gets close to the core of the essential failing of your anti-evolutionary, and racial view of human origins.
Why would you expect 80 thousand year old ancestral remains to look *exactly* like any *singular* modern ethnic group?
Ancient human ancestors vary in appearance.
Their modern descendants vary in appearance.
Descendants vary with respect to their ancestors.
Your problem is that you *refuse to grasp the reality* that the FIXED RACIAL ARCHTYPES you advocate do not exist as material reality.
They are reifications - intellectual abstractions - imposed upon a reality that has no obligation to so constrict itself.
Here is a reconstruction of the earliest known human [homo sapien] from Ethiopia:
The differences described above are hugely significant because they echo features seen in some older African hominid fossils, such as Homo heidelbergensis, whilst at the same time displaying a very modern look we would recognise today. In essence, the researchers argue, the Herto skulls fill a gap between the more archaic humans who went before and the very modern people who came after. The Herto people could be our direct and immediate ancestors. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2981756.stmPosts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
Simple yes, accurate no.
All you did was pick and choose your examples to support your preconceived notions.
But I can easily pick other examples which completely contradict the above.
Contemporary Africans:
Contemporay Tibitan:
Now I will teach you, if you will permit, something about the implications of your own rhetoric.
The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.
^ It helped them to evade the reality that all kinds of people could be called negroes, even where the appelation were ideologically undesirable.
Same goes for mongoloid.
These are reiffied abstractions, not actual divisions [or clades] of humanity.
The qualifier's 'true and classical' are simply built-in double talk, that allows you to either assert or deny your racial archtypes at will.
And this in turn is why pseudo-scholars [dienekes for example] love race-tautology, because they can use it to claim whatever they want.
Here then is what you've proven Dr. Winters with your "Short history of Negroid and Mongoloid":
terms like negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid are worse than useless. - CL Brace.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
SHORT HISTORY OF CAUCASOID, NEGROID AND MONGOLOID...... ....."negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid caucas...."Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by prmiddleeastern: you forgot the Arabs, who migrated outside of Africa via Y Haplogroup F.
I have not discussed the Arabs because the Levant and Saudi Arabs have different backgrounds. The Levant Arabs are mainly the descendants of the Gutian mountain tribes.
The Saudi Arabs are the result of the mixing of Blacks and Indo-European speaking Sea People since 1100 BC.
posted
Just like Black and white people don't look alike the same can be said for Asians.
When I was at University in the 1970's on registration day at the U of I we would be registering students for the various student Associations. Some of my Asian friends felt uncomfrotable asking people in they were Chinese or Japanese. I belonged to the Black student organization and these students would ask me to tell them which was which. I was quite accurate with around a 87% success rate.
You purposely used a photograph of a South African and Tibetan. These two photos tell us nothing about Asian and African types.
First of all South African Blacks are very mixed. Here you find people who have ancestors that are of bushman and bantu origin. You are from South Africa and you know full well that this women is a bushman or San and not a Bantu.
Hottentot
As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.
Venus Figurines
The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.
Rasol you are such a dishonest person. If you continue to do things like this I may lose more respect for you. I had believed that you said things out of ignorance. Now, I clearly see that like the closet Eurocentrists you are you will go to any means to hide the truth from African people shame on you.
The Tibetan area is the entrance from East Asia into India. Here you find people who are the descendants of various nationalities who have used this pathway to enter India and vise versa.
Note the Chinese and Mongolian types among these Tibetan women
The photos you publish do not in anyway dispute the facts.
I use the term classical mongoloid to make it clear that differences exist between Han/Hau people and the majority of People living in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands who have been classified as classical mongoloids.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.
Simple yes, accurate no.
All you did was pick and choose your examples to support your preconceived notions.
But I can easily pick other examples which completely contradict the above.
Contemporary Africans:
Contemporay Tibitan:
Now I will teach you, if you will permit, something about the implications of your own rhetoric.
The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.
^ It helped them to evade the reality that all kinds of people could be called negroes, even where the appelation were ideologically undesirable.
Same goes for mongoloid.
These are reiffied abstractions, not actual divisions [or clades] of humanity.
The qualifier's 'true and classical' are simply built-in double talk, that allows you to either assert or deny your racial archtypes at will.
And this in turn is why pseudo-scholars [dienekes for example] love race-tautology, because they can use it to claim whatever they want.
Here then is what you've proven Dr. Winters with your "Short history of Negroid and Mongoloid":
terms like negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid are worse than useless. - CL Brace.
posted
All Asians do not look alike. Note the diffences between Han/Hau people and Classical Mongoloid people.
Han/Hau
Classical Mongoloids
I use the term classical mongoloid to make it clear that differences exist between Han/Hau people and the majority of People living in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands who have been classified as classical mongoloids.
posted
Mr. Winters, you have been shown to not have any credibility whatsoever. The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term, especially given that there are Mongolians and North Asians who have DARK skin and features that are NOT "classic Mongoloid" (high cheek bones, long faces, narrow slanted eyes). Then to ridicule yourself further you then backtrack and say that all Asians have variation but that the kids above are "classic mongoloid". In fact, YOU don't even know what classic Mongoloid means. This is obvious from your own contradictions, where you put round eyed Filipino children into the category of "mongoloid", which is nothing more than a form of TRUE Asian, which again contradicts what you said about variation in the first place. Your fumbling reveals the absurdity of your logic. All Asians do not have high cheekbones, white skin, flat faces, small noses, thin lips, thin slanted eyes and long faces. Across Asia there is a VARIETY of features among various Asian groups, which means that there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with. Therefore, given this fact of natural diversity, it is impossible to claim that modern Asian features are descended from a SINGLE tribe of "true" Asians from central Asia. ALL Asians descend from the original blacks who left Africa and populated Asia. The features you see are the result of natural differentiation among these original black populations.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am very angrey that more is not written about the history of the Classical mongoloid people. Once I discovered that the Austro-Asiatic languages were related to Sumerian and they probably founded Catal Huyuk and the Shang-Anyang empire; I recognized that we need to know about the history of these people.
Right now they make it appear that the Chinese were the only civilizers of Asia this is false much of their civilization is based on the technology and writing they took from the Afro-Dravidian and Classical mongoloids who once dominated the area.
I hope that once DJ stops being ashamed of his "brown-ness" he will illuminate this great history for his people. DJ is Marc and I's personal troll--but on other forms he shows great intelligence. I know that given the breath of his literature base he can do the job.
.
I may not live to see it but I believe oneday DJ will make his people proud and show the world the great history of his people.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! You are angry because nobody else believes in your phony race typing! Why not take a hint? There are TONS of books on the history of Asia and the Philippines written by Asians. If they DON'T talk about "classic Mongoloids" maybe it is because such a thing DOES NOT EXIST. Shouldn't THEY know themselves and their history enough to know better? Surely you aren't saying that these books lack illumination of Asian history because they don't follow your fake RACE TYPES that never existed before they came out of your mouth? Yeah they sure better go back and start putting "classic Mongoloid" into those texts so that Mr. Winters can claim that Asian history has properly been illuminated. That is absurdly retarded.
If I was an Asian I would take your statement as an insult.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Mr. Winters, you have been shown to not have any credibility whatsoever. The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term, especially given that there are Mongolians and North Asians who have DARK skin and features that are NOT "classic Mongoloid" (high cheek bones, long faces, narrow slanted eyes). Then to ridicule yourself further you then backtrack and say that all Asians have variation but that the kids above are "classic mongoloid". In fact, YOU don't even know what classic Mongoloid means. This is obvious from your own contradictions, where you put round eyed Filipino children into the category of "mongoloid", which is nothing more than a form of TRUE Asian, which again contradicts what you said about variation in the first place. Your fumbling reveals the absurdity of your logic. All Asians do not have high cheekbones, white skin, flat faces, small noses, thin lips, thin slanted eyes and long faces. Across Asia there is a VARIETY of features among various Asian groups, which means that there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with. Therefore, given this fact of natural diversity, it is impossible to claim that modern Asian features are descended from a SINGLE tribe of "true" Asians from central Asia. ALL Asians descend from the original blacks who left Africa and populated Asia. The features you see are the result of natural differentiation among these original black populations.
This debate has nothing to do with trying to find the true "Asia". It is just an acknowledgement that there are two main divisions of East Asians: Han/Hua and Classical Mongoloid. If you don't acknowledge this fact how can you truthfully write an ancient history of the world and its people?
You are really hung up on this dark color thing. If color was solely depended on ancestry and even environment the Bushman would be darker than Classical mongoloid people.
Han/Hau
Classical Mongoloids
Above we see Han and Classical Mongoloid people. The later is darker than the former. There was no Ice Age in China. Mr. Expert explain why these populations have different color schemes when you claim that they are the descendants of the first African migrants to settle Eastern Eurasia.
Doug your mind is so controlled by Eurocentric thinking that you won't dare think for yourself. You believe that if you deny racial difference you can ignore the reality of differences that exist between racial groups, who may in turn be classified into one of three major macroracial categories; negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.
Think for yourself. Stop being afraid to write what you believe based on the facts, instead of writing only what your European Masters have agreed upon.
If DuBois, JA Rogers and Carter G. Woodson, had been as cowardly as you, we would know nothing about the history of African people. I would rather stand on the shoulders of brave scholarly warriors like JA Rogers, than weakly repeat the messages given you by the established European masters you obey. These Europeans care little about our history and distort history facts, to support the status quo and deny we existed as founders of many Ancient civilizations.
The statement you can be black , but not African is a ruse used by scholars to distort the past in such a way as to make certain "Blacks", white, like when they write about the "black-skinned-white Egyptians. Shame on you.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: LOL! You are angry because nobody else believes in your phony race typing! Why not take a hint? There are TONS of books on the history of Asia and the Philippines written by Asians. If they DON'T talk about "classic Mongoloids" maybe it is because such a thing DOES NOT EXIST. Shouldn't THEY know themselves and their history enough to know better? Surely you aren't saying that these books lack illumination of Asian history because they don't follow your fake RACE TYPES that never existed before they came out of your mouth? Yeah they sure better go back and start putting "classic Mongoloid" into those texts so that Mr. Winters can claim that Asian history has properly been illuminated. That is absurdly retarded.
If I was an Asian I would take your statement as an insult.
This shows your lack of confidence. Asians like the Han don't think like you. Like Europeans they are doing everything in their power to re-write the history of East Asia, and white-out the history of African and Classical Mongoloids in East Asian History.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde there is no such thing as a classical Mongoloid. Therefore, they cannot be erasing something that does not exist. Mongoloid means MONGOLIAN and most Asians are NOT MONGOLIANS. Stop with your lame assertions that have absolutely no bearing on reality. The only people writing about "classic" Mongoloid culture would be.... MONGOLIANS.
White washing of Asian history HAS NOTHING to do with Mongoloids and everything to do with ancient blacks, who YOU YOURSELF claim are distinct from Mongoloids. Please stop making up contradictory statements to reinforce nonsense claims.
Posts: 8891 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Mr. Winters, you have been shown to not have any credibility whatsoever. The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term, especially given that there are Mongolians and North Asians who have DARK skin and features that are NOT "classic Mongoloid" (high cheek bones, long faces, narrow slanted eyes). Then to ridicule yourself further you then backtrack and say that all Asians have variation but that the kids above are "classic mongoloid". In fact, YOU don't even know what classic Mongoloid means. This is obvious from your own contradictions, where you put round eyed Filipino children into the category of "mongoloid", which is nothing more than a form of TRUE Asian, which again contradicts what you said about variation in the first place. Your fumbling reveals the absurdity of your logic. All Asians do not have high cheekbones, white skin, flat faces, small noses, thin lips, thin slanted eyes and long faces. Across Asia there is a VARIETY of features among various Asian groups, which means that there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with. Therefore, given this fact of natural diversity, it is impossible to claim that modern Asian features are descended from a SINGLE tribe of "true" Asians from central Asia. ALL Asians descend from the original blacks who left Africa and populated Asia. The features you see are the result of natural differentiation among these original black populations.
This debate has nothing to do with trying to find the true "Asia". It is just an acknowledgement that there are two main divisions of East Asians: Han/Hua and Classical Mongoloid. If you don't acknowledge this fact how can you truthfully write an ancient history of the world and its people?
You are really hung up on this dark color thing. If color was solely depended on ancestry and even environment the Bushman would be darker than Classical mongoloid people.
Han/Hau
Classical Mongoloids
Above we see Han and Classical Mongoloid people. The later is darker than the former. There was no Ice Age in China. Mr. Expert explain why these populations have different color schemes when you claim that they are the descendants of the first African migrants to settle Eastern Eurasia.
Doug your mind is so controlled by Eurocentric thinking that you won't dare think for yourself. You believe that if you deny racial difference you can ignore the reality of differences that exist between racial groups, who may in turn be classified into one of three major macroracial categories; negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.
Think for yourself. Stop being afraid to write what you believe based on the facts, instead of writing only what your European Masters have agreed upon.
If DuBois, JA Rogers and Carter G. Woodson, had been as cowardly as you, we would know nothing about the history of African people. I would rather stand on the shoulders of brave scholarly warriors like JA Rogers, than weakly repeat the messages given you by the established European masters you obey. These Europeans care little about our history and distort history facts, to support the status quo and deny we existed as founders of many Ancient civilizations.
The statement you can be black , but not African is a ruse used by scholars to distort the past in such a way as to make certain "Blacks", white, like when they write about the "black-skinned-white Egyptians. Shame on you.
.
The only division of Asia in the way you described is IN YOUR BRAIN. Nobody else from Asia subscribes to this because such a division does not exist. Classic MONGOLOID refers to MONGOLIAN history and culture. MONGOLS are not a major division of ASIAN people.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Just like Black and white people don't look alike the same can be said for Asians.
Of course, I agree with you that all Asians don't look alike.
quote: You purposely used a photograph of a South African and Tibetan.
^ To illustrate a point that you purposely are not addressing.
Neither all Africans, nor all Asians look like the stereotype you select and formulate your theory of race around.
There are Africans who have features that are found in Mongolians, that are found in Australians, that are found the people of New Guinea, and that are found in the people of the Levant and Europe.
The anthropology record of Africa shows that this diversity was even greater in the past than in the present.
The entire world population is descendant from this relatively small pool of ancient Africans.
This is why you can't constrict modern Africans or non Africans, both of whom are descendant from ancient Africans, to narrow physical stereotypes that they *never did* conform to.
I don't really expect you to learn from this though, because race-stereotypes are necessary for you to formulate pseudohistorical anthropology theory.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:First of all South African Blacks are very mixed.
Mixture is always the excuse of outdated race-anthropologists, when reality doesn't conform to stereotype.
South Africa has and 80 thousand plus, year old record of human habitation.
Anthropolgoists still argue over whether this original population looks more like Bantu, or Khoisan, for the same reasons..... they have similarities to both SAN and Bantu, but don't look *exactly* like either.
But why should they? How could they?
They are 80 thousand years old!
Now, the same phenomenon is present in the earliest history of the Nile Valley, Nazlet Khater, from 30 thousand years ago, which are sometimes likened to "nubian" and at other times to "khoisan".
In present terms the excuse for such inconclusiveness by race typology believers is 'mixture'.
But admixture models are *DISCONFIRMED* whenever the supposedly 'mixed' types PRECEDE the templates upon which they are supposed to have been based on to begin with:
See the following....
The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures.
The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.
Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations - The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.
You can't acknowledge greater variablity in the past, and then turn around and blame the lesser variability in the present on mixture.
Pure race vs mixed race models are outdated.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I disagree with Dr. Winters categorization of who are the Asian blacks I would not side with the extreme notion that classical Mongoloid is a term soley of his use. When we disagree we need to reign in our emotions and desist from berating or deriding a forum member.
Researching the literature shows that others in fact do usecthe term classical Mongoloid. Do they mean the same phenotype that Dr. Winters suggest? No. But that's what definitions are about. One defines ones terms from the outset of their writing so that confusion lessens as to what the writer means in contrast to what the reader inteprets the writer's terms to mean.
quote: ... the classical Mongoloid cranial morphology appeared in northeastern Asia, either as a local response to extreme environmental conditions, or as the product of a migration from northern Europe, ... Walter A. Neves et al A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World Journal of Human Evolution Volume 48, Issue 4, April 2005, Pages 403-414
-----
... the Mongoloid group, in which the Chinese are classified as central or classical Mongoloid ... Sood Sangvichien Neolithic Skeletons from Ban Kao, Thailand, and the Problem of Thai Origins Current Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 234-235
-----
... the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent pattern and other features) evolved in Asia. Bruce Trigger, Wilcomb E. Washburn, Richard E. W. Adams The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 197
-----
... the classical Mongoloid. facial morphology originated in Asia. Alexander G. Kozintsev et al Collateral relatives of American Indians among the Bronze Age populations of Siberia? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 108, Issue 2 , Pages 193 - 204
http://goldsea.com/Poll/Comparing/comparing_21229.html Read Asians battle it out between themselves for the title of superior Asian. Some of them use classical Mongoloid. Here's a letter of interest from a Filipino of similar heritage as HipHop's Foxy Brown:
quote: It's comments like those, that draw me away from other Asians. I am filipino/black, born in Manila, having a black father (My grandfather on my dads side actually fought in WWII in the philippines, thats right he was a BUFFALO SOLDIER! Bob Marley was right!) and filipina mother. When I moved to America at the age of 2 i had no knowledge of my filipino heritage, but now i know it something to be proud of, i didnt realize how beautiful filipino were, with their passion for living, and great culture. I didnt realize how beautiful the islands were and how truly blessed they were by God. How can anyone honestly say Filipinos have nothing to be proud of? I am not gonna sit here and even argue that because it would take all day. Even when i was a kid, i was never accepted by other asians (chinese, koreans you name it) but when i went to the philippines, i felt nothing but warmth and love. These people really love to accept others and make them feel at home, and they are my people! Give thanks and Praises...
buffalo soldier Tuesday, December 24, 2002 at 12:17:14 (PST)
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Accurate information, but services a strawman argument.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I would not side with the extreme notion that classical Mongoloid is a term soley of his use.
^ Be careful, that is a misinterpretation of what was said, which was....
quote:rasol: The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.
^ The terms origin here is attributed to Eurocentrists, not *soley to Dr. Winters*.
My position is that Winters race-anthropology parrots Eurocentrism and originates nothing.
Now, *this*, you may refute, if you like. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ As for the Eurocentric uses of the term.....
... the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent pattern and other features) evolved in Asia.- Bruce Trigger,
^ As with true negro, the term classical Mongoloid is arbitrary, has no consistent use, and is internally contradictory when specifics are demanded.
Trigger specifies dental trait, Sinodontry, although this was not the base for earlier uses of the term.
Very well then, lets examine sinodontry, as the indicator of 'true' mongoloid....
Dental morphology of the Dawenkou Neolithic population in North China: implications for the origin and distribution of Sinodonty
Yoshitaka Manabe, , a, Joichi Oyamada, a, Yoshikazu Kitagawa, a, Atsushi Rokutanda, a, Katsutomo Kato, b and Takayuki Matsushita
We compare the incidence of 25 nonmetric dental traits of the people of the Neolithic Dawenkou culture (6300–4500 BP) sites in Shandong Province, North China with those of other East Asian populations. The Dawenkou teeth had an overwhelmingly greater resemblance to the Sinodont pattern typical of Northeast Asia than to the Sundadont pattern typical of Southeast Asia. Multidimensional scaling using Smith's mean measure of divergence (MMD) statistic place the Dawenkou sample near the Amur and the North China–Mongolia populations in the area of the plot indicating typical Sinodonty. The existence of the Sinodont population in Neolithic North China suggests a possible continuity of Sinodonty from the Upper Cave population at Zhoukoudian (about 34,000–10,000 BP) to the modern North Chinese.
Note carefully the referenced population, the Sinodonts of Upper Cave Zhoukoudian, about which Chris Stringer, in "African Exodus" says the following....
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China
^ Ancient Paleolithic Asian also *do not conform* to race archtypes.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do you think you're the only one who's addressed the classical Mongoloid term in this thread?
Nothing to refute there except Dr. Winters is an Afrocentric using the tools of a bygone anthropology that still informs the population geneticists of today.
Most importantly my input is not a strawman arguement because I'm contributing my views in a discussion not attempting to win a debate. There is a difference and a major one at that.
Follow the below closely and to its end otherwise it's full portent will be lost. Little of value is short and sweet.
quote: The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term, . . . . there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with.
I can't agree with DougM's first statement when and if the term or any term is defined by the one who goes about using it consistently in the way they define it. But, for sure I may object to their definition and use and totally disagree with it.
I'm in full agreement with DougM's second statement because he implemented definitions and then assessed those defined terms.
This below statement calls for more research to verify or disqualify it.
quote:There are TONS of books on the history of Asia and the Philippines written by Asians. If they DON'T talk about "classic Mongoloids" maybe it is because such a thing DOES NOT EXIST.
We've seen and linked to popular accounts where Asians use the term but that's not the same as scholars and the intelligentsia.
quote: Mongoloid means MONGOLIAN and most Asians are NOT MONGOLIANS.
Because the clauses of this statement are conjoined it's false. Mongoloid does not mean Mongolian it means like a Mongol. Now it is true that most Asians aren't Mongolians but most Asians do resemble Mongols in any number of phenotypical features.
These following statements of Rasol's, I mostly disagree with them.
quote: Mongoloid describes a race typology no longer in technical use
Ah, but it is still in technical use no matter we think it wrong. We can reject it, point out its pitfalls, but can't say it's not in use when geneticists heavily cited on this forum use it.
quote: I am not aware of any group of Asians who call themselves classic Mongoloids.
Well you are now if you've perused that Asian chat board.
quote: In and English context the word is ugly - it describes a disease.
This term was invented by white racists.
This is a case of the cart before the horse. The anthropological term Mongoloid comes from Mongol or Mongolia presumably a self named people/nation/region. Like Caucasiod it expanded to include people of a continent with similar phenotype. Originally Ethiopoid completed this trinity making all of them geographic terms. Racialist outlooks prevailed when Ethiopoid was replaced by Negroid a colour not a people/nation/region descriptor. Many here continue to do this when they write "white black Asian" instead of white black yellow."
Most Genghis Khan's crew shared some features in common. Since they were Mongols these features were mongoloid. Others of like feature outside of Mongolia would be mongoloids (like mongols) seeing they aren't actual Mongols.
Yes it was racialist dubbing sufferers of Downs Syndrome as mongoloid idiots because of the tendency of their displaying "slanted" eyes. However, the term mongoloid didn't originate from Downs Syndrome it originated afaik from the people who invaded Europe from central Asia.
The major problem of the "triumvirate" division even if "corrected" to Ethiopoid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid is when they get applied to people of from different environs. There are Ethiopians and they do have various looks and its valid to apply Ethiopoid (like an Ethiopian) to other Africans who resemble any of Ethiopia's varied ethno-linguistic populations. But to apply the term outside the continent would be wrong. That's why caucasoid stinks to high heaven to unholy hell.
The "triumvirate" classification is also not good because people live in other places than just Africa, Asia, and Europe. Such people are neither ethiopoid, mongoloid, or caucasoid. Nor are all Africans ethiopoid, all Asians mongoloid, or all Europeans caucasoid.
Wisely we try to avoid that kind of terminology here because we see the mess any variant of it will eventually lead. However, it's too bad for us that the field continues to use these outmoded terminologies while on the other hand occasionally condemning them.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Accurate information, but services a strawman argument.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I would not side with the extreme notion that classical Mongoloid is a term soley of his use.
^ Be careful, that is a misinterpretation of what was said, which was....
quote:rasol: The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.
^ The terms origin here is attributed to Eurocentrists, not *soley to Dr. Winters*.
My position is that Winters race-anthropology parrots Eurocentrism and originates nothing.
Now, *this*, you may refute, if you like.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
...
... happy now?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
-> 'just got bored with ignoring the nonsense. After awhile it's easier to just correct it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic