posted
I quoted Green et al about the 75% African heritage of the Mexicans. Salsassin has not destroyed this evidence he attempts to dismiss this quote by claiming it was made by an "activist" this is a stupid statement since Green et al are citing the figure they co-sign. I made a response:
In it I discuss the fact that I have a Masters Degree in Social Science from the University of Illinois-Urbana, with minors in Linguistics and Anthropology. Also I note that I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University in Chicago for three years before I took my present position.
I also noted the many presentations I have made at international and national anthropological meetings including AAA.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I quoted Green et al about the 75% African heritage of the Mexicans. Salsassin has not destroyed this evidence he attempts to dismiss this quote by claiming it was made by an "activist" this is a stupid statement since Green et al are citing the figure they co-sign. I made a response:
In it I discuss the fact that I have a Masters Degree in Social Science from the University of Illinois-Urbana, with minors in Linguistics and Anthropology. Also I note that I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University in Chicago for three years before I took my present position.
I also noted the many presentations I have made at international and national anthropological meetings including AAA.
Why don't you ask Salsassin to post his qualifications. He won't because he dosen't have any.
But he is a beautiful liar, and good artist.
.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers.
Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.
Clyde makes much of this, but in reality there is little here to support his contentions.
Underhill is citing another paper "One Mayan male, previously shown (12) to have an African Y chromosome, had the 194-bp C haplotype." The paper is: Mark T.Seielstad, et al. 1994. “Construction of human Y-chromosomal haplotype using a new polymorphic A to G transition,” Human Molecular Genetics 3(12): 2159-2161 and what Seiestad, et al. actually said is :
quote:An A to G transition at position 168 occurs in 41% of the Africans in our sample, and in a single Mayan from Mexico.. . We have observed only the A and G alleles at this locus.. . The G allele is found in complete linkage disequilibrium with a polymorphic Alu insertion (YAP), and has only been found on chromosomes with the Alu insertion (Table 2). The difference in frequency between Africans and non- Africans is very highly significant. In our sample, the Alu insertion is restricted to Africans [Lissongo, Sudan Beja, Sudan Nuba, Zair Pygmy, CAR Pygmy], Japanese, and a single Mayan individual, although it has been seen at low frequency in Caucasian populations.. .
That a single Mayan individual carries the G allele on a chromosome with the Alu insertion suggests an African origin for this Y chromosome. However, comparisons of this Mayan with Africans and other Maya at 30 autosomal microsatellite loci (15), fail to show significant African admixture. This discrepancy can be explained by considering the rapid decrease of an ancestor's autosomal contribution to succeeding generations. While a particular Y chromosome would remain unchanged over many generations, an ancestor's contribution to the autosomes declines exponentially with each generation. This observation suggests that Y-chromosomal haplotypes may be more useful in identifying ancient population admixture than autosomal loci such as microsatellites. Based on our data alone, it is not possible to determine whether the G transition occurred independently on a YAP containing chromosome that reached the Americas fromAsia. We consider such an event unlikely, but the discovery and application of additional well defined polymorphisms may clarify the issue. Interestingly, a high frequency of the YAP insertion in the Japanese has been observed in this and another study (5). A recent massive infusion of African Y chromosomes in Japan or Japanese Y chromosomes in Africa can be excluded. Presumably the Alu insertion existed (or still does) in some mainland Asian populations which colonized Japan.
points to make: 1. The African populations cited are not the Mande 2. This haplotype with the ALU insertion is also found in Japanese and "in low frequencies in Europeans" 3. Extensive attempts to find Maya/African admixture failei [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I quoted Green et al about the 75% African heritage of the Mexicans. Salsassin has not destroyed this evidence he attempts to dismiss this quote by claiming it was made by an "activist" this is a stupid statement since Green et al are citing the figure they co-sign. I made a response:
In it I discuss the fact that I have a Masters Degree in Social Science from the University of Illinois-Urbana, with minors in Linguistics and Anthropology. Also I note that I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University in Chicago for three years before I took my present position.
I also noted the many presentations I have made at international and national anthropological meetings including AAA.
Why don't you ask Salsassin to post his qualifications. He won't because he dosen't have any.
But he is a beautiful liar, and good artist.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [ You can't read. I cited Lisker et al 1996 and Green et al 2000 which discussed African- Mexican admixture.
.
I notice that my discussion of Underhill and Seistadt was ignored.
Again, neither of these support your contention because you quote tendentiously. R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” Human Biology 68 (#3): 395-404. 1. You argue that the populations studied on the east coast of Mexico come from the area of the Olmec development, i.e. Tabasco. However only one, Paraiso, comes from Tabasco. El Carmen is from Campeche and Saladero, Veracruz and Tamiahua are from Veracruz neither is an ancestral Olmec area. But, the east coast of Mexico had a high proportion of African slaves.
2. These six [B]mestizo populations also had a high white percentage , often higher than the black percentage, which only demonstrates that the intermixing took place in colonial times and after rather than in pre-colonial times. Here are all the results from Table 2 of Lisker rather than the selective listing of black percentages. black indian white Paraiso 0.217 0.474 0.309 El Carmen 0.284 0.432 0.284 Veracruz 0.256 0.394 0.350 Saladero 0.302 0.386 0.312 Tamiahua 0.405 0.307 0.288
3. When Lisker looks at "Indian" populations, which would be a truer test of African admixture we find mostly zero African genes except two cases, which still have a higher percentage of "white." black indian white Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088 Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146 Chontal 0.05 0.783 0.167 Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222 Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259 Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373 Cora 0.008 0.792 0.200
All that Lisker shows is that interbreeding tok place between Africans, Spanish and Indians after the conquest of Mexico. It absolutely does NOT support a supposed Mande presence in pre-Columbian Mexico
You quote Green as if the statement had been made in a refereed publication but, in fact, the "statistic" comes from an unrefereed Afrocentric publication, which is the source you should really cite,
Lance D. Green, James N. Derr, and Alec Knight. 2000 "mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central," American Journal of Human Genetics 66:989-998,
quote: "Today, the number of Mexicans with African heritage is not known; however, some suggest that as much as 75% of the modern Mexican population has some African ancestry (Muhammad 1995). Estimation of African contribution to the genetic heritage of Mexico may now be accomplished through identification of population of origin by use of diagnostic, discrete character, molecular genetic markers. Such analyses will ultimately provide a more accurate understanding of Mexican history and culture."
The supposed 75 percent comes from:
Muhammad JS (1995) "Mexico and Central America". In: ] Minority Rights Group (ed) No longer invisible: Afro-Latin Americans today. Minority Rights Publications, London, pp 163-180.
Every statement you make has to be checked for accuracy with the original source. . [/QB]
Additional information. I did not have Muhammad's book at hand, but Salsassin found out that Muhammad, in fact had not done any original research but quoted Miriam Jimenez. However, as Salsassin points out, Miriam Jimenez says that she never has and never would have made a claim of 75% African ancestry for Mexicans. I mentioned Winters' claim of 75% African ancestry for Mexican to my wife, who burst out laughing. Anyone who known anything about Mexico knows that the claim is preposterous on its face. This incident also shows that Clyde has no idea about the rules for academic citation. You must always go to the original citation to judge the accuracy of a claim (in this case Miriam Jimenez). But then, what would one expect from an untenured instructor who is totally unreliable in quoting and citing as I have repeatedly shown.
As I have also posted before, presentations at meetings are NOT "peer reviewed" and standards are quite lax. My students used to present at the Central States meeting of the American Anthropological Association papers that were "not ready for prime time" to get experience presenting and to get critiques to improve their data. Presentations are not taken seriously until they get published in refereed journals-- particularly when the author is unknown in the discipline. I have organized symposiums and presented frequently at national meetings of the AAA as well as the AAAS, and I know what I'm talking about.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not into the Olmecs were continental African emigrants theory--at least based on late early Holocene paleontological record of North America, but not sure the Olmecs are accurately represented, if at all, by contemporary "Native" American populations either.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I quoted Green et al about the 75% African heritage of the Mexicans. Salsassin has not destroyed this evidence he attempts to dismiss this quote by claiming it was made by an "activist" this is a stupid statement since Green et al are citing the figure they co-sign. I made a response:
In it I discuss the fact that I have a Masters Degree in Social Science from the University of Illinois-Urbana, with minors in Linguistics and Anthropology. Also I note that I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University in Chicago for three years before I took my present position.
I also noted the many presentations I have made at international and national anthropological meetings including AAA.
Why don't you ask Salsassin to post his qualifications. He won't because he dosen't have any.
But he is a beautiful liar, and good artist.
.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [ You can't read. I cited Lisker et al 1996 and Green et al 2000 which discussed African- Mexican admixture.
.
I notice that my discussion of Underhill and Seistadt was ignored.
Again, neither of these support your contention because you quote tendentiously. R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” Human Biology 68 (#3): 395-404. 1. You argue that the populations studied on the east coast of Mexico come from the area of the Olmec development, i.e. Tabasco. However only one, Paraiso, comes from Tabasco. El Carmen is from Campeche and Saladero, Veracruz and Tamiahua are from Veracruz neither is an ancestral Olmec area. But, the east coast of Mexico had a high proportion of African slaves.
2. These six [B]mestizo populations also had a high white percentage , often higher than the black percentage, which only demonstrates that the intermixing took place in colonial times and after rather than in pre-colonial times. Here are all the results from Table 2 of Lisker rather than the selective listing of black percentages. black indian white Paraiso 0.217 0.474 0.309 El Carmen 0.284 0.432 0.284 Veracruz 0.256 0.394 0.350 Saladero 0.302 0.386 0.312 Tamiahua 0.405 0.307 0.288
3. When Lisker looks at "Indian" populations, which would be a truer test of African admixture we find mostly zero African genes except two cases, which still have a higher percentage of "white." black indian white Huichol 0.00 0.912 0.088 Totonaco 0.00 0.854 0.146 Chontal 0.05 0.783 0.167 Chol 0.00 0.778 0.222 Zapoteco 0.00 0.741 0.259 Huasteco 0.00 0.627 0.373 Cora 0.008 0.792 0.200
All that Lisker shows is that interbreeding tok place between Africans, Spanish and Indians after the conquest of Mexico. It absolutely does NOT support a supposed Mande presence in pre-Columbian Mexico
You quote Green as if the statement had been made in a refereed publication but, in fact, the "statistic" comes from an unrefereed Afrocentric publication, which is the source you should really cite,
Lance D. Green, James N. Derr, and Alec Knight. 2000 "mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central," American Journal of Human Genetics 66:989-998,
quote: "Today, the number of Mexicans with African heritage is not known; however, some suggest that as much as 75% of the modern Mexican population has some African ancestry (Muhammad 1995). Estimation of African contribution to the genetic heritage of Mexico may now be accomplished through identification of population of origin by use of diagnostic, discrete character, molecular genetic markers. Such analyses will ultimately provide a more accurate understanding of Mexican history and culture."
The supposed 75 percent comes from:
Muhammad JS (1995) "Mexico and Central America". In: ] Minority Rights Group (ed) No longer invisible: Afro-Latin Americans today. Minority Rights Publications, London, pp 163-180.
Every statement you make has to be checked for accuracy with the original source. . [/QB]
Additional information. I did not have Muhammad's book at hand, but Salsassin found out that Muhammad, in fact had not done any original research but quoted Miriam Jimenez. However, as Salsassin points out, Miriam Jimenez says that she never has and never would have made a claim of 75% African ancestry for Mexicans. I mentioned Winters' claim of 75% African ancestry for Mexican to my wife, who burst out laughing. Anyone who known anything about Mexico knows that the claim is preposterous on its face. This incident also shows that Clyde has no idea about the rules for academic citation. You must always go to the original citation to judge the accuracy of a claim (in this case Miriam Jimenez). But then, what would one expect from an untenured instructor who is totally unreliable in quoting and citing as I have repeatedly shown.
As I have also posted before, presentations at meetings are NOT "peer reviewed" and standards are quite lax. My students used to present at the Central States meeting of the American Anthropological Association papers that were "not ready for prime time" to get experience presenting and to get critiques to improve their data. Presentations are not taken seriously until they get published in refereed journals-- particularly when the author is unknown in the discipline. I have organized symposiums and presented frequently at national meetings of the AAA as well as the AAAS, and I know what I'm talking about.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Quetzalcoatl for clearing the scholarship up and setting the record straight. Unfortunately the legendary Salsassin is not here to present his argument against Mr. Clyde, but I am sure he'd be greatful for what you have done.
I sincerely doubt Mr. Clyde will see the error in his way as he is staunchly set in it. When a man gets up in age it is extremely hard to convince him otherwise as he will hold to his conviction for dear life, even when confronted with its errant nature.
Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
You have quite a reputation in Chicago. Is it not true that you failed the psychological part of the CPD exam, and then sued on the grounds of "race discrimination", whereupon the suit was dismissed immediately. Moreover, apparently you cannot keep a job; word around here is that you are invariably fired, and then just as invariably sue on the same grounds. Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm a Chicago lawyer, and lawyers who know of you think you're an absolute lunatic. Lawyers in a big city like Chicago dont make stuff like this up. Maybe you can straighten things out for everybody, since if these rumors are true, they shed a lot of light on your claims of expertise, as well as your integrity.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
HAHAHA! Telling... quite telling. So, Mr. Clyde may indeed suffer from some mental illness and I am willing to bet if so, it is some kind of schizophrenia. This is also an observation I've made over the years regarding the more militant and fanatical Afronuts. They all seem to suffer from some mental illness like shchizophrenia.
quote:Originally posted by phenelzine: Mr Winters:
You have quite a reputation in Chicago. Is it not true that you failed the psychological part of the CPD exam, and then sued on the grounds of "race discrimination", whereupon the suit was dismissed immediately. Moreover, apparently you cannot keep a job; word around here is that you are invariably fired, and then just as invariably sue on the same grounds. Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm a Chicago lawyer, and lawyers who know of you think you're an absolute lunatic. Lawyers in a big city like Chicago dont make stuff like this up. Maybe you can straighten things out for everybody, since if these rumors are true, they shed a lot of light on your claims of expertise, as well as your integrity.
posted
Poor Clyde. I always knew the guy had problems judging by the nonsense he posts here, but I didn't know it was this bad! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sad part is that Clyde thinks he is contributing to Africanist scholarship when really it is pseudo-scholarly nonsense like his that gives all Africanist scholarship a bad name! Afrocentrism gets a bad rap as being radical and fringe when really it is the radical fringe Afrocentrics like Clyde.
Hell, even the eurocentric geeks and white racist losers know this which is why 'Afronut-slayed' and 'phenelzine' prefer to attack poor Clyde instead of addressing real scholarship and evidence from more mentally stable folks here at Egyptsearch, which comes to show how pathetic they are! Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The sad part is that Clyde thinks he is contributing to Africanist scholarship when really it is pseudo-scholarly nonsense like his that gives all Africanist scholarship a bad name! Afrocentrism gets a bad rap as being radical and fringe when really it is the radical fringe Afrocentrics like Clyde.
Hell, even the eurocentric geeks and white racist losers know this which is why 'Afronut-slayed' and 'phenelzine' prefer to attack poor Clyde instead of addressing real scholarship and evidence from more mentally stable folks here at Egyptsearch, which comes to show how pathetic they are!
posted
Seeking legal redress for material and monetary harm; makes ones knowledge and scholarship suspect??
What a bunch of clueless assholes.
BTW - What do you think of the ethics and qualifications of the pseudo Barrister Phenelzine?
Did anyone read the "Opinion Footnotes" in the linked doc. guess they never heard of impartiality in Illinois.
DOES THIS MEAN ANYTHING??
Phenelzine is used to treat certain types of serious depression and severe depression complicated by severe anxiety that do not respond to other antidepressant drugs.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Don't even dare group me with those anti-African idiots! Just because YOU with Clyde are birds of a feather-- the crazed Afrocentrics who rely on fraud scholarship!
quote:Originally posted by phenelzine: Thanks for the compliments!
Of course you are. You are a lawyer after all. Which makes you part of the same crooked group who put law professor Obama in charge and await big monetary pay-back. But don't worry you'll get payed in full alright. Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I quoted Green et al about the 75% African heritage of the Mexicans. Salsassin has not destroyed this evidence he attempts to dismiss this quote by claiming it was made by an "activist" this is a stupid statement since Green et al are citing the figure they co-sign. I made a response:
In it I discuss the fact that I have a Masters Degree in Social Science from the University of Illinois-Urbana, with minors in Linguistics and Anthropology. Also I note that I taught linguistics at Saint Xavier University in Chicago for three years before I took my present position.
I also noted the many presentations I have made at international and national anthropological meetings including AAA.
Why don't you ask Salsassin to post his qualifications. He won't because he dosen't have any.
But he is a beautiful liar, and good artist.
.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers.
Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.
Clyde makes much of this, but in reality there is little here to support his contentions.
Underhill is citing another paper "One Mayan male, previously shown (12) to have an African Y chromosome, had the 194-bp C haplotype." The paper is: Mark T.Seielstad, et al. 1994. “Construction of human Y-chromosomal haplotype using a new polymorphic A to G transition,” Human Molecular Genetics 3(12): 2159-2161 and what Seiestad, et al. actually said is :
quote:An A to G transition at position 168 occurs in 41% of the Africans in our sample, and in a single Mayan from Mexico.. . We have observed only the A and G alleles at this locus.. . The G allele is found in complete linkage disequilibrium with a polymorphic Alu insertion (YAP), and has only been found on chromosomes with the Alu insertion (Table 2). The difference in frequency between Africans and non- Africans is very highly significant. In our sample, the Alu insertion is restricted to Africans [Lissongo, Sudan Beja, Sudan Nuba, Zair Pygmy, CAR Pygmy], Japanese, and a single Mayan individual, although it has been seen at low frequency in Caucasian populations.. .
That a single Mayan individual carries the G allele on a chromosome with the Alu insertion suggests an African origin for this Y chromosome. However, comparisons of this Mayan with Africans and other Maya at 30 autosomal microsatellite loci (15), fail to show significant African admixture. This discrepancy can be explained by considering the rapid decrease of an ancestor's autosomal contribution to succeeding generations. While a particular Y chromosome would remain unchanged over many generations, an ancestor's contribution to the autosomes declines exponentially with each generation. This observation suggests that Y-chromosomal haplotypes may be more useful in identifying ancient population admixture than autosomal loci such as microsatellites. Based on our data alone, it is not possible to determine whether the G transition occurred independently on a YAP containing chromosome that reached the Americas fromAsia. We consider such an event unlikely, but the discovery and application of additional well defined polymorphisms may clarify the issue. Interestingly, a high frequency of the YAP insertion in the Japanese has been observed in this and another study (5). A recent massive infusion of African Y chromosomes in Japan or Japanese Y chromosomes in Africa can be excluded. Presumably the Alu insertion existed (or still does) in some mainland Asian populations which colonized Japan.
points to make: 1. The African populations cited are not the Mande 2. This haplotype with the ALU insertion is also found in Japanese and "in low frequencies in Europeans" 3. Extensive attempts to find Maya/African admixture failei
It is still most likely haplogroup E. 2. Although the YAP+ insertion is found in Japan It is Yap-->D. The YAP insertion in Africa and Europeans that trace their male ancestor back to Africa is Yap--->E. Europeans havent ever been sampled as Haplogroup D. Depending on how long ago this admixture took place it may not show through autosomal loci.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde is, if nothing else, spectacularly prolific. He's written an astonishing number of articles.
To Quetz: What hath postmodernism wrought? As Gottlieb Herder said long ago--- "Let a thousand floweres bloom!"
Posts: 55 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^I in no way support Winters' Meso-American claims but it is clear from the web link that the university violated its settlement agreement with him as the court itself affirms. [quote]
"..it was specifically reported to him, by someone with no motive for fabrication, that University had violated its obligations under its Settlement Agreement."
Other factors as noted above, including the late filing doomed his case, but Clyde was right that the university did not live up to the settlement. I'll grant him that.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: It is still most likely haplogroup E. 2. Although the YAP+ insertion is found in Japan It is Yap-->D. The YAP insertion in Africa and Europeans that trace their male ancestor back to Africa is Yap--->E. Europeans havent ever been sampled as Haplogroup D. Depending on how long ago this admixture took place it may not show through autosomal loci.
Also DE was found in more individuals in Africa than in Eurasia making a strong case for the origin of YAP+ there! Oh and getting back to the subject of this forum-- Ancient Egypt--- they are DEFINITELY black Africans!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Not into the Olmecs were continental African emigrants theory--at least based on late early Holocene paleontological record of North America, but not sure the Olmecs are accurately represented, if at all, by contemporary "Native" American populations either.
Evergreen Writes: Crucial statement, Explorer. While the Olmecs may not have been Black **Africans**, the evidence does indicate that there were two waves from Asia and that Blacks from Asia did inhabit Mesoamerica as late as the Olmec period.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afronutty you have some nerve calling other folks un-stable when you stay posting..sH!t like
4 Did AEians put wigs or weaves on their babies? (post #0) Ancient Egypt 1 6 A realistic depiction of AEians... (post #0) Ancient Egypt 11 December, 2009 7 natural selection and climate (post #0) Ancient Egypt 30 November, 2009 8 First Afronuts falsely claimed AE were black skin and then.. (post #0) Ancient Egypt 30 November, 2009 9 Is the European look the ideal beauty? (post #0) Ancient Egypt 25 November, 2009 10 Is Afrocentrism a form of "ENTITLEMENT"? (post #0) Ancient Egypt 16 November, 2009 11 Australian Aborigines vs Black Africans (post #0) Ancient Egypt 15 November, 2009 12 Sammy Sosa proves that the Afrocentric mindset is alive and well! (post #0) Ancient Egypt 08 November, 2009 13 The phenomenon of the 'BLACCENT' (post #0) Ancient Egypt 05 November, 2009 14 Salsassin does it again! Destroys another Afrolunatic (post #0) Ancient Egypt 05 November, 2009 15 The "Kunlun" Slave - Negroe presence in early China. (post #0) Ancient Egypt 03 November, 2009 16 The evolutionary level of a people who supposedely descend from AE... (post #0) Ancient Egypt 01 November, 2009 17 An "Evolutionary E. African" shows what happens when you leave Africa... (post #0) Ancient Egypt 01 November, 2009 18 You gotta see this video!!!!!! (post #0) Ancient Egypt 30 October, 2009 19 Believe it or not, Cannibalism still practiced. Guess where? (post #0) Ancient Egypt 30 October, 2009 20 Egyptian depictions during Roman era... (post #0) Ancient Egypt 28 October, 2009 21 Afronuts claim non Blacks are evolutionary E. Afrikans. If that is so... (post #0) Ancient Egypt 27 October, 2009 22 They steal other peoples' hair texture, hair color, eye color, and history. (post #0) Ancient Egypt 26 October, 2009 23 Black men will rape white women yet white men almost never rape Black women. Why? (post #0) Ancient Egypt 25 October, 2009 24 Why afronutties want so badly to do away with the concept "Race". (post #0) Ancient Egypt 11 October, 2009 25 Non blacks are now fighting back afrocentrists!!! (post #0) Ancient Egypt 11 October, 2009 26 The Intelligent Quotient (I.Q.) and Race (post #0) Ancient Egypt 09 October, 2009 27 The meaning of "Black" and "black skin". Are they the same? (post #0) Ancient Egypt 09 October, 2009 28 Salsassin destroys the ghetto myth Napolean shot off the nose of the sphinx ! (post #0) Ancient Egypt 08 October, 2009 29 This is why I love Salsassin! He makes mince meat outta Afronut burgers! (post #0) Ancient Egypt 05 October, 2009 30 What is the difference between "Black" and "Black skinned?" (post #0) Ancient Egypt 05 October, 2009 31 Can the Afronuts (Afrocentrists) answer this question? (post #0) Ancient Egypt 04 October, 2009 32 The insanity of the Afronut! Check out what they call BLACK,,, (post #0) Ancient Egypt 04 October, 2009 33 Simply hilarious! afronuts think black skinned is exclusive to Blacks!!!! Ancient Egypt 04 October, 2009 34 Let us not forget the Afronuts have also laid claim to ISLAM and the prophet [pbuh] (post
You have compulsive obecession disorder with Black folks..for unstable mind...look no further than the mirror.Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Not into the Olmecs were continental African emigrants theory--at least based on late early Holocene paleontological record of North America, but not sure the Olmecs are accurately represented, if at all, by contemporary "Native" American populations either.
Evergreen Writes: Crucial statement, Explorer. While the Olmecs may not have been Black **Africans**, the evidence does indicate that there were two waves from Asia and that Blacks from Asia did inhabit Mesoamerica as late as the Olmec period.
Exactly what "evidence" more Wuthenau pictorials?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evergreen Writes: Crucial statement, Explorer. While the Olmecs may not have been Black **Africans**, the evidence does indicate that there were two waves from Asia and that Blacks from Asia did inhabit Mesoamerica as late as the Olmec period.
Exactly what "evidence" more Wuthenau pictorials?
From earlier studies like the following, mainly focusing on North American specimens...
Abstract
The limited morphometric work on early American crania to date has treated them as a single, temporally defined group. This paper addresses the question of whether there is significant variability among ancient American crania. A sample of 11 crania (Spirit Cave, Wizards Beach, Browns Valley, Pelican Rapids, Prospect, Wet Gravel male, Wet Gravel female, Medicine Crow, Turin, Lime Creek, and Swanson Lake) dating from the early to mid Holocene was available. Some have recent accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates, while others are dated geologically or archaeologically. All are in excess of 4500 BP, and most are 7000 BP or older. Measurements follow the definitions of Howells [(1973) Cranial variation in man, Cambridge: Harvard University). Some crania are incomplete, but 22 measurements were common to all fossils. Cranial variation was examined by calculating the Mahalanobis distance between each pair of fossils, using a pooled within sample covariance matrix estimated from the data of Howells. The distance relationships among crania suggest the presence of at least three distinct groups: 1) a middle Archaic Plains group (Turin and Medicine Crow), 2) a Paleo/Early Archaic Great Lakes/Plains group (Browns Valley, Pelican Rapids, Lime Creek), and 3) a spatially and temporally heterogeneous group that includes the Great Basin/Pacific Coast (Spirit Cave, Wizards Beach, Prospect) and Nebraska (Wet Gravel specimens and Swanson Lake).
These crania were also compared to Howells' worldwide recent sample, which was expanded by including six additional American Indian samples. None of the fossils, except for the Wet Gravel male, shows any particular affinity to recent Native Americans; their greatest similarities are with Europe, Polynesia, or East Asia. Several crania would be atypical in any recent population for which we have data. Browns Valley, Pelican Rapids, and Lime Creek are the most distinctive. They provide evidence for the presence of an early population that bears no similarity to the morphometric pattern of recent American Indians or even to crania of comparable date in other regions of the continent.
The heterogeneity among early American crania makes it inadvisable to pool them for purposes of morphometric analysis. Whether this heterogeneity results from different early migrations or one highly differentiated population cannot be established from our data. Our results are inconsistent with hypotheses of an ancestor-descendent relationship between early and late Holocene American populations. They suggest that the pattern of cranial variation is of recent origin, at least in the Plains region. - Jantz et al. (2001)
While more recent analysis from say, Neves et al. (2005) [which examines ancient southern American specimens], tells us...
The increasing evidence that all late Pleistocene/ early Holocene human groups from South America are characteristically non-Mongoloid has major implications for the colonization of the Americas, as argued by one of us (WAN) since the end of the 1980s. Even if few studies with large samples from single sites have been carried out so far with Paleoindians (see Neves et al., 2003, 2004, as examples of these studies), it is evident by now that South America Central America and possibly North America, were populated by human groups with a more generalized cranial morphology before the arrival of the Mongoloids.
Like Stringer, they too see the generalized pattern as that akin to that seen in cranial morphology of tropical adapted groups like Australians, Melanesians and Africans:
— Since this more generalized morphology (‘‘Australo-Melanesian- like’’) was also present in East Asia at the end of the Pleistocene, transoceanic migrations are not necessary to explain our findings.
— As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ‘‘Australo-Melanesian-like’’ population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).
What Neves et al. tells us next, pretty much sums up why Upper Paleolithic African specimens show affinities with Upper Paleolithic 'Eurasians', as well as Paleo-Indians:
1) Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces.
And then this — When 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, a new expansion of northern Asians reached the New World, bringing with it a cranial morphology characterized by short, wide neurocrania and broad, retracted faces.
2) We postulate that after reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions.
— 50 Ky ago One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 Ka.
— Between 50 and 20 Ky ago Sometime between 50 and 20 Ka a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans.
The two patterns are further described as follows...
The three different quantitative analyses undertaken in this study demonstrate that the first South Americans exhibit a cranial morphology that is:
1 — very different from late and modern Northeastern Asians and Amerindians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses)
2 — but very similar to present Australians/Melanesians and Africans, especially with the former (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).
Source: Neves et al. 2005; Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World.
Ps - Keep in mind, the proposed routes through which these early North and South American groups undertook to get to the Americas.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, the question is: Could the "Olmecs" have been an outgrowth of the so-called "generalized modern pattern" Upper Paleolithic settler group?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Clyde, the Eurocentric community must really fear you to dig up this much dirt to discredit you... I guess you must be onto something.... keep up the good work! Character assassination is normally the last line of defense....
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
You've done great work and are one of the foremost pioneers of this day making new pathways and broadening the frontiers of knowledge now most notably with your presentations on video.
Let these attacks feed your resolve and enhance your productivity.
Would that your detractors were a 1/100th as productive as you.
. .
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
You've done great work and are one of the foremost pioneers of this day making new pathways and broadening the frontiers of knowledge now most notably with your presentations on video.
Let these attacks feed your resolve and enhance your productivity.
Would that your detractors were a 1/100th as productive as you.
. .
Thanks for your support. This is not dirt. I went to court and fought for my rights.
I am a fighter and given the chance I usually come out on top.
I try to learn from all my experiences. I even learned from this case.
I learned that it is better to fight than allow anyone to walk over you.
God is great.
Through that experience I learned to work hard and stay the course.
quote:Evergreen Writes: Crucial statement, Explorer. While the Olmecs may not have been Black **Africans**, the evidence does indicate that there were two waves from Asia and that Blacks from Asia did inhabit Mesoamerica as late as the Olmec period.
Exactly what "evidence" more Wuthenau pictorials?
From earlier studies like the following, mainly focusing on North American specimens...
Abstract
The limited morphometric work on early American crania to date has treated them as a single, temporally defined group. This paper addresses the question of whether there is significant variability among ancient American crania. A sample of 11 crania (Spirit Cave, Wizards Beach, Browns Valley, Pelican Rapids, Prospect, Wet Gravel male, Wet Gravel female, Medicine Crow, Turin, Lime Creek, and Swanson Lake) dating from the early to mid Holocene was available. Some have recent accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) dates, while others are dated geologically or archaeologically. All are in excess of 4500 BP, and most are 7000 BP or older. Measurements follow the definitions of Howells [(1973) Cranial variation in man, Cambridge: Harvard University). Some crania are incomplete, but 22 measurements were common to all fossils. Cranial variation was examined by calculating the Mahalanobis distance between each pair of fossils, using a pooled within sample covariance matrix estimated from the data of Howells. The distance relationships among crania suggest the presence of at least three distinct groups: 1) a middle Archaic Plains group (Turin and Medicine Crow), 2) a Paleo/Early Archaic Great Lakes/Plains group (Browns Valley, Pelican Rapids, Lime Creek), and 3) a spatially and temporally heterogeneous group that includes the Great Basin/Pacific Coast (Spirit Cave, Wizards Beach, Prospect) and Nebraska (Wet Gravel specimens and Swanson Lake).
These crania were also compared to Howells' worldwide recent sample, which was expanded by including six additional American Indian samples. None of the fossils, except for the Wet Gravel male, shows any particular affinity to recent Native Americans; their greatest similarities are with Europe, Polynesia, or East Asia. Several crania would be atypical in any recent population for which we have data. Browns Valley, Pelican Rapids, and Lime Creek are the most distinctive. They provide evidence for the presence of an early population that bears no similarity to the morphometric pattern of recent American Indians or even to crania of comparable date in other regions of the continent.
The heterogeneity among early American crania makes it inadvisable to pool them for purposes of morphometric analysis. Whether this heterogeneity results from different early migrations or one highly differentiated population cannot be established from our data. Our results are inconsistent with hypotheses of an ancestor-descendent relationship between early and late Holocene American populations. They suggest that the pattern of cranial variation is of recent origin, at least in the Plains region. - Jantz et al. (2001)
While more recent analysis from say, Neves et al. (2005) [which examines ancient southern American specimens], tells us...
The increasing evidence that all late Pleistocene/ early Holocene human groups from South America are characteristically non-Mongoloid has major implications for the colonization of the Americas, as argued by one of us (WAN) since the end of the 1980s. Even if few studies with large samples from single sites have been carried out so far with Paleoindians (see Neves et al., 2003, 2004, as examples of these studies), it is evident by now that South America Central America and possibly North America, were populated by human groups with a more generalized cranial morphology before the arrival of the Mongoloids.
Like Stringer, they too see the generalized pattern as that akin to that seen in cranial morphology of tropical adapted groups like Australians, Melanesians and Africans:
— Since this more generalized morphology (‘‘Australo-Melanesian- like’’) was also present in East Asia at the end of the Pleistocene, transoceanic migrations are not necessary to explain our findings.
— As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ‘‘Australo-Melanesian-like’’ population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).
What Neves et al. tells us next, pretty much sums up why Upper Paleolithic African specimens show affinities with Upper Paleolithic 'Eurasians', as well as Paleo-Indians:
1) Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces.
And then this — When 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, a new expansion of northern Asians reached the New World, bringing with it a cranial morphology characterized by short, wide neurocrania and broad, retracted faces.
2) We postulate that after reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions.
— 50 Ky ago One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 Ka.
— Between 50 and 20 Ky ago Sometime between 50 and 20 Ka a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans.
The two patterns are further described as follows...
The three different quantitative analyses undertaken in this study demonstrate that the first South Americans exhibit a cranial morphology that is:
1 — very different from late and modern Northeastern Asians and Amerindians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses)
2 — but very similar to present Australians/Melanesians and Africans, especially with the former (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses).
Source: Neves et al. 2005; Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World.
Ps - Keep in mind, the proposed routes through which these early North and South American groups undertook to get to the Americas.
Thanks for the reply and the data. Thanks also for not claiming that the "blackness" was due to direct migration from Africa. There are some basic problems 1) the original proposal was that there were "black Asians" present at the time and site of the Olmecs"-- presumably from what you cited these "Black Asians" would be Australians. However, none of the data deals with Mesoamerica or the Olmecs but rather with South American Indian or North American indians and it is not about 1500 BC when the Olmecs are clearly demarcated. So this says nothing about the Olmecs and what they looked like. 2) A more fundamental problem, which applies to a huge amount of what is posted on this group, is the idea that photographs. i.e "what people look like" tells you their "race" or their genetic descent. More recent work by Gonzalez Jose, Armelagos, Tishkof and others has shown that Native Americans have always had an enormous amount of inter-group variability- more than any other group, and thus it is not necessary to postulate 2 migrations to account for the variability found among Native Americans. The presence of both brachiocepahalic and dolicocephalic individuals can be accounted for by genetic drift, responses to differential environments, and gene flow. The only sure way to trace genetic descent is with DNA, and every group tested including the oldest remains in Alaska has only had the standard A,B.C,D,X mtdna and the typical Y haplotypes. 3) Armelagos has shown in several papers that "race" cannot be identified on the basis of craniometry. 4) A sample that at least is in Mexico rather than in South America, the Penon woman, who was hailed for having a very narrow face has been found to again only have Native American DNA
Dalton, R. 2005 “Skeleton Keys,” Nature 433: 454-456
quote: Last year, a team of Argentine, Spanish and Mexican researchers published a study of the shape of 33 Pericú skulls found in museum collections2,3. The skulls are long and narrow — similar to skulls in south Asia and the Pacific Rim, and not much like the more rounded skulls typical in northern Asia. This implied that some modern peoples may have evolved from an early wave of Australasian migrants, whereas many had assumed that all descendants had been from the later Asian migrations.
Pacific links
This theory captured the imagination of scientists and the public alike, with press headlines proclaiming that Aboriginals from islands off southeastern Asia had founded America. Interest was further inflamed when the media ran a story saying that preliminary DNA tests showed that the Pericú were related to the Maori, a tribe from the Pacific islands. But, at a symposium in Mexico City last September, Phillip Endicott, a PhD student at the Henry Wellcome Ancient Biomolecules Centre at the University of Oxford, UK, revealed that the Pericú DNA matched modern native Americans of north Asian descent. A lone DNA sample reflecting Maori genes could not be replicated, he said, indicating it was probably a contamination from other tests he was performing on Maori samples in the same lab. Although the team’s early expectations of a link between the Pericú and the Maori were dashed, the DNA results posed an even more interesting question: if they’re not genetically different, why do the Pericú have skull shapes so different from those of other natives of North America? The Mexican researchers and their colleagues are now exploring a promising hypothesis: over generations, the skulls of the Pericú may have become elongated because the tribe used their teeth as tools for net or fishing-line work.Graduate students at the Autonomous University of Baja California Sur in La Paz . . . But if this idea gains support, it will throw up a fresh problem. For the Pericú it will mean that DNA tests now contradict a study based on skull shape that made it into the pages of Nature. “This could have very profound implications,” says Silvia Gonzalez, as it would cast doubt on all past and future work using skull shape alone to make decisions about a skeleton’s ancestry. Without supporting evidence from DNA, such decisions could well be wrong, she says.
Thanks for the reply and the data. Thanks also for not claiming that the "blackness" was due to direct migration from Africa. There are some basic problems 1) the original proposal was that there were "black Asians" present at the time and site of the Olmecs"-- presumably from what you cited these "Black Asians" would be Australians.
Not quite. If the Olmecs descend from the Paleo-Americans with the so-called "generalized modern pattern" of celphalo-morphometry, then they would just have *affinities* with Austalasian aborigines, Melanesians and to a lesser extent, some Africans. This does NOT imply they were Australians or any of the latter.
quote:
However, none of the data deals with Mesoamerica or the Olmecs
The study bits I posted are CENTERED on North American and South American crania, the *earliest* settlers of the Americas.
quote: but rather with South American Indian or North American indians and it is not about 1500 BC when the Olmecs are clearly demarcated.
Contemporary South American Indians and North American Indians were used in each case for comparative purposes, and the results have been provided above, as cited. The question I asked following the citations, is whether the Olmecs could have been the outgrowth of such early ancestors, purported to have the "generalized modern" cephalo-morphometric pattern. I ask, because the Olmec head figures don't exactly resemble the contemporary figures in photos posted next to those of said Olmec head figures in the photoshopped imagery above, and yet at the same time, they exhibit certain features that drive the type of scholarship Clyde engages in -- that is to say, the so-called "Negroid" cephalomorphological traits. Some of the Olmec head figures appear to have a mix of both what some would characterize as so-called "negroid" AND so-called "mongoloid" traits than others.
quote: More recent work by Gonzalez Jose, Armelagos, Tishkof and others has shown that Native Americans have always had an enormous amount of inter-group variability- more than any other group
So does the studies I had posted.
quote: and thus it is not necessary to postulate 2 migrations to account for the variability found among Native Americans.
Neves et al.'s findings, and when taken with Jantz, suggests there has been at least two early waves of migration; that much seems to be relatively clear. There could have been other small scale migrations in between.
I'll address the rest of your post latter; got certain things to attend to for the momment.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
3) Armelagos has shown in several papers that "race" cannot be identified on the basis of craniometry. 4) A sample that at least is in Mexico rather than in South America, the Penon woman, who was hailed for having a very narrow face has been found to again only have Native American DNA
Nobody here is arguing for "races", which is disavowed here in any case, in line with scientific consensus. What we are talking about is inter-population cranial specimen affinities reported by several studies over the years. To discern close genealogical links between specimens, they would have to have their DNA motifs sequenced. Otherwise, one would have to guess from what some term as "hereditary" cranial traits, which is more often than not, controversial. Cephalo-morphometry is at its best, when it's just used to adjudge inter-population *affinities*, and how that could factor in with other known data, like DNA and archeology.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
3) Armelagos has shown in several papers that "race" cannot be identified on the basis of craniometry. 4) A sample that at least is in Mexico rather than in South America, the Penon woman, who was hailed for having a very narrow face has been found to again only have Native American DNA
Nobody here is arguing for "races", which is disavowed here in any case, in line with scientific consensus. What we are talking about is inter-population cranial specimen affinities reported by several studies over the years. To discern close genealogical links between specimens, they would have to have their DNA motifs sequenced. Otherwise, one would have to guess from what some term as "hereditary" cranial traits, which is more often than not, controversial. Cephalo-morphometry is at its best, when it's just used to adjudge inter-population *affinities*, and how that could factor in with other known data, like DNA and archeology.
I don't understand the point you are making here. Could you rephrase it in terms of the question of the Olmecs? Thanks
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is simple: We are talking about cranial affinities, not "races"!
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
3) Armelagos has shown in several papers that "race" cannot be identified on the basis of craniometry. 4) A sample that at least is in Mexico rather than in South America, the Penon woman, who was hailed for having a very narrow face has been found to again only have Native American DNA
Nobody here is arguing for "races", which is disavowed here in any case, in line with scientific consensus. What we are talking about is inter-population cranial specimen affinities reported by several studies over the years. To discern close genealogical links between specimens, they would have to have their DNA motifs sequenced. Otherwise, one would have to guess from what some term as "hereditary" cranial traits, which is more often than not, controversial. Cephalo-morphometry is at its best, when it's just used to adjudge inter-population *affinities*, and how that could factor in with other known data, like DNA and archeology.
I don't understand the point you are making here. Could you rephrase it in terms of the question of the Olmecs? Thanks
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is wrong with you, I just answered you above.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Pacific Coastal Migration Route Several migration routes have been suggested for the arrival of the first Americans. Part of the current research project is to test the Pacific Coast Migration Route using DNA information from the first Mexicans including comparisons between the genetic affinity of the Peñon Woman III (with an age of around 13,000 years old) and other paleoamericans included in the Preceramic Collection at the National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City.
The genetic information from these ancient populations will be compared agaist modern populations especially the Pericues, a hunter-gatherer group from the Southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula which became extinct at the end of the 18th Century. The Pericues have been associated in the past with the First Americans due to their skull characteristics.
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
For years the origin of the name California was a mystery. Then in 1862 scholars discovered a novel written in 1521 by Garcia Ordonez de Montalvo. The book, called The Exploits of the Very Powerful Cavalier Esplandian, Son of the Excellent King Amadis of Gaul, described an exotic place:
"Know that to the right hand of the Indies was an island called California, very near to the region of the Terrestrial Paradise, which was populated by black women, without there being any men among them, that almost like the Amazons was their style of living. These were of vigorous bodies and strong and ardent hearts and of great strength; the island itself the strongest in steep rocks and great boulders that is found in the world; their arms were all of gold, and also the harnesses of the wild beasts on which, after having tamed them, they rode; that in all the island there was no other metal whatsoever. They dwelt in caves very well hewn; they had many ships in which they went out to other parts to make their forays, and the men they seized they took with them, giving them their deaths, as you will further hear. And some times when they had peace with their adversaries, they intermixed with all security one with another, and there were carnal unions from which many of them came out pregnant, and if they gave birth to a female they kept her, and if they gave birth to a male, then he was killed...
"There ruled on that island of California, a queen great of body, very beautiful for her race, at a flourishing age, desirous in her thoughts of achieving great things, valiant in strength, cunning in her brave heart, more than any other who had ruled that kingdom before her...Queen Calafia."
-------------------- Black Roots. Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
From logistics side of things, unless the Paleo-migrants were avid water navigators, would it not be safe to assume that the route with least water body would be more ideal?
From DNA end, the question is: Does the YAP+ types found in southeast Asia find any noticeable expression in "Native" American populations, claimed to be least impacted by successive migrations through the years? But even here, unless DNA are extracted from the late Paleolithic and early Holocene specimens respectively, i.e. uncontaminated, then it's anyone guess what said Paleothic and early Holocene migrant could have carried genealogically.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: The point is simple: We are talking about cranial affinities, not "races"!
Not that simple. What you arguing is that there was an earlier migration stream which had dolichocephalic crania and that these characteristics were inherited even up to the time of the Olmec and in their geographic location. What I am arguing is that there was but one migration but that these humans exhibited an extremely broad range of cranial characteristics due to differential responses to environment, genetic drift etc. The range encompassed both dolicochephalic as well as brachiocephalic crania. The point of the article I cited about the Pericu is that crania that had previously been attributed to the first "generalized" wave on morphological principles in fact had the same DSNA as all of the Native Americans usually assigned as descendants of the second wave.
The following paper showed that ancient European crania did not resemble current populations either.
G.V. Van Vark, D. Kuizenga, and F. L’Engle Williams. 2003. “Kennewick and Luzia: Lessons from the European Upper Paleolithic,” [Am. J. Of Physical Anthropology 121: 181-184.
quote:p. 181-182.. We metrically compared a series of European Upper Paleolithic skulls (EUP) to a selection of Howell’s famous cranial series, which represent both males and females in seven main geographical regions (Howells 1973, 1989) [Norse, Zulu, Mokapu (Hawaii), Southern Australia, Peru, Southern Japan, Bushman] (Table 1). Estimating the typicality probability of a specimen with respect to a given population by applying a modification of Hotelling’s two-ample test (Amberbeergen and Schaafsma, 1984), we found that 30 out of 35 available EUP cranial specimens are statistically different from all seven cranial series of Howell’s (1973, 18989) at the 5% level of significance. Moreover, we found that a majority of the 35 EUP skulls exhibit a closer affinity to non-European ones, rather than to recent European skulls (table 2). [BOM lots of Australian skulls]. In contrast, Richards et al (1996, 1998,200) and Sykes (1999), using mitochondrial DNA, demonstrated that modern Europeans can trace their roots mainly to the Upper Paleolithic immigrants who may have replaced the Neanderthals, an observation that was recently supported by Semino et al (2000) using markers from the nonrecombining Y chromosome (see also Gibbons, 2000). These studies suggest that cranial morphological affinity may be a poor indicator for the determination of ancestral-descendant relationships between Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene populations, on the one hand, and Late Holocene populations on the other. Turning once again to the American situation, one may conclude that the observed relatively close morphological affinity between old American skulls (such as those of Kennewick man and Luzia, and some non-American recent cranial populations should not be seen as strong evidence for the existence of ancestral-descendant relationships. Nor does the observed difference in cranial morphology between the oldest Americans and modern Native Americans (and East Asians) necessarily point to the replacement of the oldest American populations by more recent immigrants (see also Steele and Powell 1993). It is also clear that migration routes constructed on the basis of the craniofacial morphology of recent and nonrecent populations, such as has been suggested by Neves and Pucciareli (1991) and by Brace et al (2001), though possibly correct, should be considered with all proper reserve. Several causes can be surmised for the apparent contradiction between the results of genetic and morphological research. An extensive discussion of the possible causes of these differences lies beyond the scope of this paper. We restrict ourselves to pointing out some trends that probably played a role in their origin. The first concerns the observed trend in the Holocene for a reduction in cranial length and an increase in cranial breadth, as reported for Nubian populations by Carlson and Van Gerven (1977). Morphological changes of a similar nature also occurred in Europe (e.g. Henke, 1989) and Asia (e.g., Howells, 1983) particularly in conjunction with the introduction of the Neolithic; one might assume that shifts in economy and food processing played an important role in these processes. This trend undoubtedly contributes to the fact that patterns of modern cranial morphology become, perhaps with some exceptions (cf. Howells, 1995; Lahr, 1992), clearly visible only from Neolithic times onwards. A second interesting observation, seemingly connected with the first, is that between the Late Pleistocene and the present there was a relatively strong retention of plesiomorphic [BOM this term describes primitive or generalized characteristics that arose early in the evolutionary history of a taxonomic group] characters in peripheral populations. This might explain the relatively close morphological affinity of the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene skulls of these recent populations.
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QUOTE]What I am arguing is that there was but one migration but that these humans exhibited an extremely broad range of cranial characteristics due to differential responses to environment, genetic drift etc.
Evergreen Writes: When do you envision this wave occuring and what was the range of cranial variability in Asia at the time of departure?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The point is simple: We are talking about cranial affinities, not "races"!
Not that simple.
Well, it is up to you to tell us why the authors assessments about the affinities and what not, that they claimed to have seen in their analysis, isn't so.
quote:
What you arguing is that there was an earlier migration stream which had dolichocephalic crania and that these characteristics were inherited even up to the time of the Olmec and in their geographic location.
It isn't just a matter of two pattern types of crania, re: dolichocephalic and brachiocephalic. Rather, the crania deemed to be older of the earliest bunch, have generally been dolichocephalic, yet bearing "broad" nasal openings, lower cranio-facial height and somewhat lower orbits. These crania also generally tend to exhibit more prognathism than the later early varieties. On the other hand, the relatively later early specimens, while by no means homogeneous in characteristics, were generally relatively more wider in the breadth and shorter in length of their neuro-cranial segments. These trends seem to correlate with general temporal layering of the finds. From these trends, it has been deduced that at least two major migrations occurred in the peopling of the Americas in the late Paleolithic to early Holocene, by anatomically modern humans. Unless you can challenge those dates, and the cranial trends reported by the analysts, one would have to keep such as the most parsimoniously objective scenario.
quote: What I am arguing is that there was but one migration but that these humans exhibited an extremely broad range of cranial characteristics due to differential responses to environment, genetic drift etc. The range encompassed both dolicochephalic as well as brachiocephalic crania. The point of the article I cited about the Pericu is that crania that had previously been attributed to the first "generalized" wave on morphological principles in fact had the same DSNA as all of the Native Americans usually assigned as descendants of the second wave.
The problem with this perception, is the disregard for the dates given to the specimens, and the definitive trends noted, which seems to have some level of temporal correlation with which said trends seem apparent.
quote:
The following paper showed that ancient European crania did not resemble current populations either.
Yes, and my earlier post makes allusions to this. The earlier European crania have also been implicated in the "generalized" pattern, which seems to cluster Upper Paleolithic anatomical modern human specimens closer to one another than they do their respective more recent geographical counterparts...and so, distinct from their contemporary European counterparts. Except, the Upper Paleolithic specimens are comparatively less differentiated from segments of tropical populations than they seem to vis-a-vis the groups more adapted to the temperate northern hemisphere.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Poor Clyde. I always knew the guy had problems judging by the nonsense he posts here, but I didn't know it was this bad! ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic