The Black people in Asia were Africans.Many researchers have long noted the presence of African placenames in the Pacific and Asia generally. A certain Mr. Onimisi Baiye has an interesting site where he discusses Yoruba and Japanese placenames.
JAPANESE............. ºE....... ºN....... NIGERIAN 1 Azuma-san (mountain) 140-141 37-38.... Zuma Rock , Niger State
2 Tobi-shima (island) 139-140 39-40.... Tobi: Rivers State male name
3 Akō(town) 134-135 34-35.... Akō: Yoruba, excessive pride
4 Akan(town) 144-145 43-44...... Akandu: Ibo male name
5 Ibara(town) 133-134 34-35....... Ibarapa, Oyo State
6 Minna-jima (island) 124-125 24-25..... Minna, Niger State
18 Watanabe...... Watanabe: Southern Borno State name
19 Kōbe(city) 134.41 135.1....... Achakōbe: Isoko,Delta State name
20 Machida .......Maccido: Fulani, Sokoto State name
Compiled by Onimisi Baiye onimisibaiye@yahoo.co.uk
Onimisi Baiye wrote:
quote:
Far East Asian Languages Are Near African Languages
Written and Compiled by: Onimisi Baiye
If you do an Internet image search, www.google.com on the following Nigerian names: Haruna, Sambo, Pankan, Kwashi, Imoko, Chika, Azuka, Ezuka, Koma, Zoro, Watanabe, Nene, Osato, Osaru, Okada, Edo, Baba, Emiko, Kano, Nana, Aya, Tami, Tai, Sada, Ikimi, Ume, you will more likely see a Japanese link than a Nigerian link.
The writing system of Japanese hides the striking similarities between Japanese and African languages. But on closer examination of the syllables that make up the Kanji character set, the syllables easily describe the Nigerian Languages.
Japanese festivals and dressing are very African in color combination. Also Shinto is about shrines, ancestors, mountain spirits, tree spirits, the so-called heathen religions that was used to justify the enslavement of Blacks.
Japanese were bleached out by invading Mongolians, that is why Southern Japanese people are darker-skinned than their northern counterparts.
Chinese and Korean map to the Calabar languages of South-Southern Nigeria. One has to listen to and see the physical stature someone from that part of Nigeria to to have a feel of of the similarities to Chinese and Koreans. Unfortunately, because of the Eurocentric nature of post-colonial Nigerians, the Calabar people cannot understand why Chinese and Koreans are their bleached-out descendants. Martial Arts is of African origin.
web page The Niger-Congo and Dravidian speakers belonged to the Maa civilization. The speakers of the Niger Congo languages after the fall of the Maa Confederation lived in Nubia. From here they sailed into the Asia and spread a megalithic culture. .
Tonga step pyramid
.
This would explain the presence of West African place names in the Pacific and West Africa, since it was after the fall of Egypt that many Niger-Congo speakers migrated into West Africa. . These names were probably carried to both areas by Niger-Congo speaking people formerly of Nubia.
Baiye is not the first person to note the presence of African placenames in the Pacific. The first person to discuss this hypothesis was W.J. Page.
Williams John Page discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa.
A recent article on Nigerian place names in India was published by Dr. R. Balakrishnan titled "African roots of the Dravidian-speaking Tribes: A case in Onomastics", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 34(1) (2005),pp.153-202. Like Baiye, Dr. Balakrishnan found almost 500 Nigerian placenames, and 46 tribal names in Koraput, India; and 110 ethnonyms of Koyas in Nigeria. This led Dr. Balakrishnan to declare that :"However, the overwhelming evidence available from the toponymic corpuses of Koraput and Nigeria, and ethnonyms, surnames and personal names of Koyas seem more adequate to propose an African origin to the Koyas, the Dravidian speakers" (p.177) It is interesting to note that we find Koya placenames in Nigeria, and Nigerian place names on the East Coast of India (Balakrishnan), Nigerian place names throughout the Pacific (Page) and Nigerian placenames and surnames in Japan (Baiye). This shows a direct spread of Nigerian place names from Africa, across the Indian Ocean into the Pacific. The discovery of common place names in three different regions cannot be accounted by coincidence. Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Where they at? They was so good they went to China India Songhai etc rounded up and confiscated all written accounts of Europe's native indigenous black royals. Damn, devils w/demon power them, to make spell of forgetfulness over all Asia and Africa yet they just could not eliminate them own art works!
LOL! There is no proof.
Of course we do have proof of the almost endless diversity of Africans from whom all other populations ultimately emanate, but that does not constitute proof of black European royalty in the medieval period.
But in my experience Asians don't really deny that they are diverse and that there is a lot of blackness among them. Most of the propaganda against blackness is a foreign import, ie. European racists.
quote: Crucial in the formulation of American plans for bringing "civilization" to the Cordillera and making highlanders a more integral part of the already largely Hispanized lowland Philippines was the view that all of the "natives" were basically "the same." Establishment of a distinctive administrative grid in the Cordillera was not the product of a grand plan for divide and rule designed to put highlanders against lowlanders. Rather, it was based more on prevailing American conceptions about "types" of people and a strong desire for a "rational" system of administration based on "scientifically" justifiable principles for overseeing highlanders
Similar types of stories apply across all of Asia during the colonial period.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first picture in Doug's post is of Nigerian women at a health center that provides polio vaccines Nigeria, Am I missing something? What does that have to do with anything he said in that post or to the thread topic?
Also Pharell's mother is NOT filipino:
Carolyn Williams
while other posts have been recently moved for being off topic ???
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Though true of course as for all humanity, they originate from Africans their genomes are native to their region. They are indigenees. Indigenous has to start somewhere. A region's first known inhabitants are its authochthones.
Negro is an obsolete anthro term of near caricature facial features on a minority subset of Africans that, unfortunately, has been misapplied to various peoples in the subtropic of Cancer to the subtropic of Capricorn belt around the globe and throughout time, few of which display all the characteristics.
Arkward concepts like * black but not negro * very dark but not black are meaningless, useless and bankrupt old school anthropology biases.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
GOOGLE IMAGE keys; Angkor wat faces for full panoply of faces.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
One of the things that led me to research African and peoples of AE was when I came across information in the news on Taiwan. That was about 7years go. The news report stated the "indigenous people of Taiwan". I always assumed that the current people of Taiwan I see on the TV were "indigenous" . That started my trex. "negritos" are found all over Asia, yet, are not related to Africans. Why? They are related to people geographically closest to them.
Read more: http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1746/pictures#ixzz4HvpXfCWv
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Negrito like negro is an outmoded anthro term blanketing divers short statured Asian blacks Andaman islanders to Aeto Filipinos unrelated by language.
posted
^ That's the point, though thought to be outdated because of the complexity of Genetics and the politically correctness of contemporary times, it remains the best way to describe a bundle of physical characteristics. 'Proportionately tropically adapted Melanated individuals with broadened facial features' is a bit of a mouthful, don't you think? granted - that a good portion of modern black Americans, north and south, could at any given chance carry less typical Negro features than an indigenous Papuan, but a black Asian cannot technically be considered more negro than Aframs...right? but...that's the problem. ...If they do, then they should...IMO hear me out here. There is no "true Negro" but there is a model phenotype for a supposed "True Negro." We have our Mongoloid, and our caucasoid models as well to quickly establish or distinguish potential phenotypes. If we're in Asia and we find a skull that could be classified as "Negroid" but the ancestry is that of indigenous Asian, how is a label like Asian Negro untrue. The problem seems to stem from two things, the African diversity of phenotypes as well as classical and etymological definitions of Negro/negroid etc. the Latter needs to be established as a misnomer as pigment dilution and variation doesn't correspond with these phenotypes more than they do with collective ancestry. So none of the big 3 classifications (oids) should be determined by skin color(or vice versa), but that leads to our other problem. we call "SSA's" Negros by default, which of course should be fundamentally untrue, being that Non OOA populations received less Isolation over the course of a few hundred millennia, leading to you know what. Racial propaganda, and white supremacy put a weird spin on things but right now it seems we are doing hurdles and back spins to avoid saying the wrong things...It's better to establish the right, or correct things to say...
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What think ye of Hiernaeux?
What of Moore's The Name Negro its origin and evil use
There's a reason English speaking blacks threw off the negro yoke for continental (African-/Afro-) or colour (black) self-ID.
In this millennia negro, a Spanish word without its necessary corollary blanco, is (mildly) pejorative.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Though true of course as for all humanity, they originate from Africans their genomes are native to their region. They are indigenees. Indigenous has to start somewhere. A region's first known inhabitants are its authochthones.
Negro is an obsolete anthro term of near caricature facial features on a minority subset of Africans that, unfortunately, has been misapplied to various peoples in the subtropic of Cancer to the subtropic of Capricorn belt around the globe and throughout time, few of which display all the characteristics.
Arkward concepts like * black but not negro * very dark but not black are meaningless, useless and bankrupt old school anthropology biases.
In what way do facial features amount to a "near caricature"?
Can you show some pictures of Africans with the facial features which amount to "near caricature facial features"?
Could also point out which part of Africa those features are found and why they should be described as minority subset?
So obviously white people mocking features which are entirely African turns those features into caricature features. So I guess if Africans start painting their faces pink and start wearing blonde wigs to caricature Europeans, standard European features could then be classified as "near caricature facial features".
It only shows so many people who might classify themselves as Afrocentric or may be labelled as such still harbour Eurocentric prejudices even when they claim to approach black people from perspectives free of European prejudices.
PS. Tukuler please don't use URLs as a means changing fonts to bold face and/or color. It does get annoying when they repeatedly link to empty pages.
Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a Chinese geneticist that tried to conclude that Chinese people evolved separately as a people, but even he came to the conclusion that their ancestors came from Africa.
quote:Originally posted by garrett7114: Here is a Chinese geneticist that tried to conclude that Chinese people evolved separately as a people, but even he came to the conclusion that their ancestors came from Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: ^ That's the point, though thought to be outdated because of the complexity of Genetics and the politically correctness of contemporary times, it remains the best way to describe a bundle of physical characteristics. 'Proportionately tropically adapted Melanated individuals with broadened facial features' is a bit of a mouthful, don't you think? granted - that a good portion of modern black Americans, north and south, could at any given chance carry less typical Negro features than an indigenous Papuan, but a black Asian cannot technically be considered more negro than Aframs...right? but...that's the problem. ...If they do, then they should...IMO hear me out here. There is no "true Negro" but there is a model phenotype for a supposed "True Negro." We have our Mongoloid, and our caucasoid models as well to quickly establish or distinguish potential phenotypes. If we're in Asia and we find a skull that could be classified as "Negroid" but the ancestry is that of indigenous Asian, how is a label like Asian Negro untrue. The problem seems to stem from two things, the African diversity of phenotypes as well as classical and etymological definitions of Negro/negroid etc. the Latter needs to be established as a misnomer as pigment dilution and variation doesn't correspond with these phenotypes more than they do with collective ancestry. So none of the big 3 classifications (oids) should be determined by skin color(or vice versa), but that leads to our other problem. we call "SSA's" Negros by default, which of course should be fundamentally untrue, being that Non OOA populations received less Isolation over the course of a few hundred millennia, leading to you know what. Racial propaganda, and white supremacy put a weird spin on things but right now it seems we are doing hurdles and back spins to avoid saying the wrong things...It's better to establish the right, or correct things to say...
The generic term Negro for Blacks is fine to me. For the past 200 years it was used to identify Blacks in Africa and Asia. This was confirmed by crianiometric meseaurement and blood grouping. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics would distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.
DNA is showing the same correspondence.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Formerly indigenous Negroes were found on every continent. Today, due to slavery, most people believe that the Negron was only an African because the indigenous Negro populations were assimilated into the African slave population since 1492.
A negro is a person with:
1) Direct African ancestry
2) Brown to yellow complexion.
3) Long limbs
4) shape of the head and face varies
5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin
Here is a picture of several Wolof engaged in a conversation. Note the individuals in the picture the person in the center facing you appears to have a flat nose; whereas the person facing the center person has a nose which appears to be semi-pointed.This highlights the various nose types found among negroes.
6) curly to straight hair
7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group
Note the varying shape of the eyes evident in these negroes.
8) thick of thin lips
Some people believe that Filipino and other Asian people can be classified as Negroes because of their dark color. But a careful examination of the two clearly demonstrates differences between both group in facial features eventhough the shape of the eye may be the same. Below we have a Tanzanian girl and a Filipino boy.
Both are dark skinned, but look at differences in the form of the head, forehead and mouth. Note both have flat noses but they are clearly different in how they are established.
Both children are hansome and well proportioned . Note also the color both are brown but the African has a more richer brown complexion.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a video is posted before,it about a supposed Roman legionnaire that went missing,the interesting is at 4:16 where the geneticists talks the makeup of the people that make African component seem contemporary. https://youtu.be/JzAjR6Qbl80 I stumbled on a site showing some of the tribe in China. http://www.yixueyanjiu.com/news/6/z_6_16005.htmlPosts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
. The Loulan mummy is clearly phenotypically a Black or Negro person given the pigmentation of the mummy. Dravido-Africans had early settled Central and East Asia. The Loulan mummy was probably a Dravidian speaker.
The Loulan mummy was found at Xiaole. The DNA of the DNA of the Xiaole people was mtDNA C4 and y-Chromosome haplogroups R1a1a, H and K (Li et al, 2010).
The Xiaole people mtDNA include many of the Pan-African haplotypes . The HVR1 motif was 16189-16192-163111. Xioale mtDNA hyplotypes include S1(16223) and S2 (16304). Li et al (2010) claim the mtDNA was C4, R* and M*..
The y-Chromosome SNPs were M89,M9,M45,M173 and M198. The y-Chromosomes of the Xiaole people were haplogroups R1a1a, H, and K. These y-chromosome haplogroups are common to the Dravidian and Siddi people in India (Winters,2010).
The Dravidian and Siddi people came from Africa (Winters, 2007a, 2008a,2008b,2010). The Dravidians belonged to the C-group people (Winters, 2007, 2008b). They migrated to Iran and India after 2600BC. The Dravidians carry African haplogroups M1 and y-chromosomes (Winters, 2008b,2010).
The Dravidians were called Yueh and Qing in the Chinese literature. Yueh people founded the Dongson culture of Southeast Asia. In Southeast Asia the Dravidians were called Yakshas or Kamboja (Winters,1986). In China the Yueh people founded the Shang Dynasty.
Xiaole mummies were representative of a Black population.There were probably no whites in Tarim basin at this time. They date back to a period after the Hua had defeated the Anyang-Shang and the racist Chinese-Mongoloids began to exterminate Blacks and push them back into Central Asia. In China the Mongoloids would sacrifice Blacks for good luck and blessings.
In conclusion the Loulan mummy was probably of Dravidian origin. The Dravidian origin of the Loulan mummy is supported by the Xiaole DNA that corresponds to Dravidian and African DNA>
References:
Li C1, Li H, Cui Y, Xie C, Cai D, Li W, Mair VH, Xu Z, Zhang Q, Abuduresule I, Jin L, Zhu H, Zhou H.(2010).Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age. BMC Biol. 2010 Feb 17;8:15. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-8-15. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15
Winters,C. A.(1986). "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no2: 225- 241.
Winters,C. 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
___________2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics.
posted
Use of the term black to represent humanity/mankind and the earth is also evident in other ancient Black civilizations. The founders of the Chinese Empire of Xia and Shang, were Dravidian and Manding speakers. They also used black to identify themselves. As a result, they called themselves Li min (Black People). The popular term for the original non-Hua or Asia Chinese was Li min. Li=black while min= people , thusly “Black People”. Below the Chinese terms are given the Pinyin Romanization.
In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang. The name Qiang is quite interesting it is made up of the signs for bow shooting an arrow over fields (see L. Wieger, Chinese Characters (1915,p.291). Interestingly, the term Qiang is also appplied to the Tibetans. Again, in Qiangwe see the Association of an ethnonym with the earth, in this case fields.
The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result this dynasty is called Shang-Yin. The Yin or Oceanic Mongoloid type is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang, "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). The Austronesian or Oceanic Mongoloid type were called Yin, Feng, Yen, Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.
In Chinese min=people(p. 624) and li= black (p.618) (see L. Wieger, Chinese Characters (1915)).The Chinese classics make it clear that the Min Li , meant "Black people" not young Chinese or peasant Chinese. In the "Shu King", we read that "In the Canon of Yao, we discover that Yu "…regulated and polished the people of his domain, who all became brightly intelligent. Finally, he united and harmonized the myriad States of the empire; and lo! The black people were transformed". In this passage "min li is used to describe all the people in the Empire, not just the peasants or the young people. In Book II, it was written that Kao yao "…with vigorous activity sowing abroad his virtue, which has decended on the black people, till they cherish him in their hearts". Again the term li min was applied to the people of the empire and not just a particular group.
In Chinese a hamlet is also called : li . It is composed the Chinese sign for field T’ien/Tien ’(Wieger, p.317). So, again, just like in the Hebrew and Egyptian traditions the term for humanity was “li min” , ‘black people’ is associated with the earth.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin
6) curly to straight hair
7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group
8) thick or thin lips
Clyde, two points here:
A) How do you tell if a person does NOT have direct African ancestry as you required in (1) ? What is the methodology ?
B) you said:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics would distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.
-but you did not include that in your 8 points. Do you want to update?
Of your 8 points, other populations could have 7 of them, just not the African ancestry. So if crianiometrics would distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations then that would be the second strongest point after Direct African ancestry because the other points are not exclusive to Negroes.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The linguistic, anthropological and linguistic data make it clear that the Dravidian people came to India from Africa during the Neolithic and not the Holocene period.
In the sub-continent of India, there were several main groups. The traditional view for the population origins in India suggest that the earliest inhabitants of India were the Negritos, and this was followed by the Proto-Australoid, the Mongoloid and the so-called mediterranean type which represent the ancient Egyptians and Kushites (Clyde A. Winters, "The Proto-Culture of the Dravidians, Manding and Sumerians",Tamil Civilizations 3, no.1(1985), pp.1-9. http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0Of0Qx2Cx73bfBe9Br22PJw07Hx0XWBF7yL3KJA1lpKjMKR9wdu1rf3ABC6U_FOIgPUoMUJTSYMK-0flVh2PvugcHIntLtV3bg/Fertile1.pdf ). The the Proto-Dravidians were probably one of the cattle herding groups that made up the C-Group culture of Nubia Kush (K.P. Aravanan, "Physical and Cultural Similarities between Dravidian and African", Journal of Tamil Studies, no.10 (1976, pp.23-27:24. ).
Genetics as noted by Mait Metspalu et al writing in 2004, in “Most extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans” http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26 can not tell which group first entered India. Mait Metspalu wrote _________________________________________________________________ Language families present today in India, such as Indo-European, Dravidic and Austro-Asiatic, are all much younger than the majority of indigenous mtDNA lineages found among the present day speakers at high frequencies. It would make it highly speculative to infer, from the extant mtDNA pools of their speakers, whether one of the listed above linguistically defined group in India should be considered more “autochthonous” than any other in respect of its presence in the subcontinent (p.9). ________________________________________________________________________
B.B. Lal ("The Only Asian expedition in threatened Nubia:Work by an Indian Mission at Afyeh and Tumas", The Illustrated London Times , 20 April 1963) and Indian Egyptologist has shown conclusively that the Dravidians originated in the Saharan area 5000 years ago. He claims they came from Kush, in the Fertile African Crescent and were related to the C-Group people who founded the Kerma dynasty in the 3rd millennium B.C. (Lal 1963) The Dravidians used a common black-and-red pottery, which spread from Nubia, through modern Ethiopia, Arabia, Iran into India as a result of the Proto-Saharan dispersal.
B.B. Lal (1963) a leading Indian archaeologist in India has observed that the black and red ware (BRW) dating to the Kerma dynasty of Nubia, is related to the Dravidian megalithic pottery. Singh (1982) believes that this pottery radiated from Nubia to India. This pottery along with wavy-line pottery is associated with the Saharo-Sudanese pottery tradition of ancient Africa .
Aravaanan (1980) has written extensively on the African and Dravidian relations. He has illustrated that the Africans and Dravidian share many physical similarities including the dolichocephalic indexes (Aravaanan 1980,pp.62-263; Raceand History.com,2006), platyrrhine nasal index (Aravaanan 1980,pp.25-27), stature (31-32) and blood type (Aravaanan 1980,34-35; RaceandHistory.com,2006). Aravaanan (1980,p.40) also presented much evidence for analogous African and Dravidian cultural features including the chipping of incisor teeth and the use of the lost wax process to make bronze works of arts (Aravaanan 1980,p.41).
There are also similarities between the Dravidian and African religions. For example, both groups held a common interest in the cult of the Serpent and believed in a Supreme God, who lived in a place of peace and tranquility ( Thundy, p.87; J.T. Cornelius,"Are Dravidians Dynastic Egyptians", Trans. of the Archaeological Society of South India 1951-1957, pp.90-117; and U.P. Upadhyaya, "Dravidian and Negro-African", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics 5, no.1 ) .
There are also affinities between the names of many gods including Amun/Amma and Murugan . Murugan the Dravidian god of the mountains parallels a common god in East Africa worshipped by 25 ethnic groups called Murungu, the god who resides in the mountains .
There is physical evidence which suggest an African origin for the Dravidians. The Dravidians live in South India. The Dravidian ethnic group includes the Tamil, Kurukh,Malayalam, Kananda (Kanarese), Tulu, Telugu and etc. Some researchers due to the genetic relationship between the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speaking groups they call the Indians the Sudroid (Indo-African) Race (RaceandHistory,2006).
Dravidian languages are predominately spoken in southern India and Sri Lanka. There are around 125 million Dravidian speakers. These languages are genetically related to African languages. The Dravidians are remnants of the ancient Black population who occupied most of ancient Asia and Europe.
Linguistic Evidence
1.1 Many scholars have recognized the linguistic unity of Black African (BA) and Dravidian (Dr.) languages. These affinities are found not only in the modern African languages but also that of ancient Egypt. These scholars have made it clear that lexical, morphological and phonetic unity exist between African languages in West and North Africa as well as the Bantu group.
1.2 K.P. Arvaanan (1976) has noted that there are ten common elements shared by BA languages and the Dr. group. They are (1) simple set of five basic vowels with short-long consonants;(2) vowel harmony; (3) absence of initial clusters of consonants; (4) abundance of geminated consonants; (5) distinction of inclusive and exclusive pronouns in first person plural; (6) absence of degrees of comparison for adjectives and adverbs as distinct morphological categories; (7) consonant alternation on nominal increments noticed by different classes; (8)distinction of completed action among verbal paradigms as against specific tense distinction;(9) two separate sets of paradigms for declarative and negative forms of verbs; and (l0) use of reduplication for emphasis.
1.3 There has been a long development in the recognition of the linguistic unity of African and Dravidian languages. The first scholar to document this fact was the French linguist L. Homburger (1950,1951,1957,1964). Prof. Homburger who is best known for her research into African languages was convinced that the Dravidian languages explained the morphology of the Senegalese group particularly the Serere, Fulani group. She was also convinced that the kinship existed between Kannanda and the Bantu languages, and Telugu and the Mande group. Dr. L. Homburger is credited with the discovery for the first time of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between Bantu and Dravidians
1.6 By the 1970's numerous scholars had moved their investigation into links between Dr. and BA languages on into the Senegambia region. Such scholars as Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) a Senegalese linguist, and U.P. Upadhyaya (1973) of India , have proved conclusively Dr. Homburger's theory of unity between the Dravidian and the Senegalese languages.
1.7 C.T. N'Diaye, who studied Tamil in India, has identified nearly 500 cognates of Dravidian and the Senegalese languages. Upadhyaya (1973) after field work in Senegal discovered around 509 Dravidian and Senegambian words that show full or slight correspondence.
1.8 As a result of the linguistic evidence the Congolese linguist Th. Obenga suggested that there was an Indo-African group of related languages. To prove this point we will discuss the numerous examples of phonetic, morphological and lexical parallels between the Dravidian group: Tamil (Ta.), Malayalam (Mal.), Kannanda/Kanarese (Ka.), Tulu (Tu.), Kui-Gondi, Telugu (Tel.) and Brahui; and Black African languages: Manding (Man.),Egyptian (E.), and Senegalese (Sn.) _________________________________________________________________
code:
COMMON INDO-AFRICAN TERMS
ENGLISH DRAVIDIAN SENEGALESE MANDING MOTHER AMMA AMA,MEEN MA FATHER APPAN,ABBA AMPA,BAABA BA PREGNANCY BASARU BIIR BARA SKIN URI NGURU,GURI GURU BLOOD NETTARU DERET DYERI KING MANNAN MAANSA,OMAAD MANSA GRAND BIIRA BUUR BA SALIVA TUPPAL TUUDDE TU CULTIVATE BEY ,MBEY BE BOAT KULAM GAAL KULU FEATHER SOOGE SIIGE SI, SIGI MOUNTAIN KUNRU TUUD KURU ROCK KALLU XEER KULU STREAM KOLLI KAL KOLI
6.1 Dravidian and Senegalese. Cheikh T. N'Diaye (1972) and U.P. Upadhyaya (1976) have firmly established the linguistic unity of the Dravidian and Senegalese languages. They present grammatical, morphological, phonetic and lexical parallels to prove their point.
6.2 In the Dravidian and Senegalese languages there is a tendency for the appearance of open syllables and the avoidance of non-identical consonant clusters. Accent is usually found on the initial syllable of a word in both these groups. Upadhyaya (1976) has recognized that there are many medial geminated consonants in Dravidian and Senegalese. Due to their preference for open syllables final consonants are rare in these languages.
6.3 There are numerous parallel participle and abstract noun suffixes in Dravidian and Senegalese. For example, the past participle in Fulani (F) -o, and oowo the agent formative, corresponds to Dravidian -a, -aya, e.g., F. windudo 'written', windoowo 'writer'.
6.4 The Wolof (W) -aay and Dyolo ay , abstract noun formative corresponds to Dravidian ay, W. baax 'good', baaxaay 'goodness'; Dr. apala 'friend', bapalay 'friendship'; Dr. hiri 'big', hirime 'greatness', and nal 'good', nanmay 'goodness'.
6.5 There is also analogy in the Wolof abstract noun formative suffix -it, -itt, and Dravidian ita, ta, e.g., W. dog 'to cut', dogit 'sharpness'; Dr. hari 'to cut', hanita 'sharp-ness'.
6.6 The Dravidian and Senegalese languages use reduplication of the bases to emphasize or modify the sense of the word, e.g., D. fan 'more', fanfan 'very much'; Dr. beega 'quick', beega 'very quick'.
6.7 Dravidian and Senegalese cognates.
code:
English Senegalese Dravidian body W. yaram uru head D. fuko,xoox kukk hair W. kawar kavaram 'shoot' eye D. kil kan, khan mouth D. butum baayi, vaay lip W. tun,F. tondu tuti heart W. xol,S. xoor karalu pup W. kuti kutti sheep W. xar 'ram' cow W. nag naku hoe W. konki bronze W. xanjar xancara blacksmith W. kamara skin dol tool mother W. yaay aayi child D. kunil kunnu, kuuci ghee o-new ney
Above we provided linguistic examples from many different African Supersets (Families) including the Mande and Niger-Congo groups to prove the analogy between Dravidian and Black African languages. The evidence is clear that the Dravidian and Black African languages should be classed in a family called Indo-African as suggested by Th. Obenga. This data further supports the archaeological evidence accumulated by Dr. B.B Lal (1963) which proved that the Dravidians originated in the Fertile African Crescent.
Agricultural Evidence
One of the principal groups to use millet in Africa are the Northern Mande speaking people (Winters, 1986). The Norther Mande speakers are divided into the Soninke and Malinke-Bambara groups. Holl (1985,1989) believes that the founders of the Dhar Tichitt site where millet was cultivated in the 2nd millenium B.C., were northern Mande speakers.
To test this theory we will compare Dravidian and Black African agricultural terms, especially Northern Mande. The linguistic evidence suggest that the Proto-Dravidians belonged to an ancient sedentary culture which exitsed in Saharan Africa. We will call the ancestor of this group Paleo-Dravido-Africans.
The Dravidian terms for millet are listed in the Dravidian Etymological Dictionary at 2359, 4300 and 2671. A cursory review of the linguistic examples provided below from the Dravidian, Mande and Wolof languages show a close relationship between these language. These terms are outlined below:
code:
Kol sonna --- --- ----
Wolof (AF.) suna --- ---- ---
Malinke (AF) suna bara, baga de-n, doro koro
Tamil connal varaga tinai kural
Malayalam colam varaku tina ---
Kannanda --- baraga, baragu tene korale,korle
*sona *baraga *tenä *kora
It is clear that the Dravidian and African terms for millet are very similar. The Proto-Dravidian terms *baraga and *tena have little if any affinity to the African terms for millet.
The Kol term for millet ‘sonna’, is very similar to the terms for millet used by the Wolof ‘suna’ ( a West Atlantic Language), and Mande ‘suna’ (a Mande language). The agreement of these terms in sound structure suggest that these terms may be related.
The sound change of the initial /s/ in the African languages , to the /c/ in Tamil and Malayalam is consistent with the cognate Tamil and Malayalam terms compared by Aranavan(1979 ,1980;) and Winters ( 1981, 1994). Moreover, the difference in the Kol term ‘ soona’,which does retain the complete African form indicates that the development in Tamil and Malayalam of c < s, was a natural evolutionary development in some South Dravidian languages. Moreover, you will also find a similar pattern for other Malinke and Dravidian cognates, e.g., buy: Malinke ‘sa, Tamil cel; and road: Malinke ‘sila’, Tamil ‘caalai’.
African Millets Carried to India by Dravidian Speakers
The sound change of the initial /s/ in the African languages , to the /c/ in Tamil and Malayalam is consistent with the cognate Tamil and Malayalam terms compared by Aranavan(1979 ,1980;) and Winters ( 1981, 1994). Moreover, the difference in the Kol term ‘ soona’,which does retain the complete African form indicates that the development in Tamil and Malayalam of c < s, was a natural evolutionary development in some South Dravidian languages. Moreover, you will also find a similar pattern for other Malinke and Dravidian cognates, e.g., buy: Malinke ‘sa, Tamil cel; and road: Malinke ‘sila’, Tamil ‘caalai’.
The linguistic and anthropological data make it clear that the Dravidian speaking people were part of the C-Group people who formed the backbone of the Niger-Congo speakers. It indicates that the Dravidians took there red-and-black pottery with them from Africa to India, and the cultivation of millet. The evidence makes it clear that the genetic evidence indicating a Holocene migration to India for the Dravidian speaking people is wrong. The Dravidian people given the evidence for the first cultivation of millet and red-and-black pottery is firmly dated and put these cultural elements in the Neolithic. The evidence makes it clear that genetic evidence can not be used to effectively document historic population movements.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Controversy surrounding the Kushite/African/Black origins of the Elamites, Sumerians, Akkadians and “Assyrians” is simple and yet complicated. It involves both the racism exhibited toward the African slaves in the Western Hemisphere and Africans generally which led to the idea that Africans had no history ; and the need of Julius Oppert to make Semites white, to accommodate the “white” ancestry of European Jews.
To understand this dichotomy we have to look at the history of scholarship surrounding the rise of Sumero-Akkadian studies. The study of the Sumerians, Akkadians. Assyrians and Elamites began with the decipherment of the cuneiform script by Henry Rawlinson. Henry Rawlinson had spent most of his career in the Orient. This appears to have gave him an open mind in regards to history. He recognized the Ancient Model of History, the idea that civilization was founded by the Kushite or Hamitic people of the Bible.
As result, Rawlinson was surprised during his research to discover that the founders of the Mesopotamian civilization were of Kushite origin. He made it clear that the Semitic speakers of Akkad and the non-Semitic speakers of Sumer were both Black or Negro people who called themselves sag-gig-ga “Black Heads”. In Rawlinson’s day the Sumerian people were recognized as Akkadian or Chaldean, while the Semitic speaking blacks were called Assyrians.
Rawlinson identified these Akkadians as Turanian or Scythic people. But he made it clear that these ancient Scythic or Turanian speaking people were Kushites or Blacks.
A major supporter of Rawlinson was Edward Hincks. Hincks continued Rawlinson’s work and identified the ancient group as Chaldeans, and also called them Turanian speakers. Hincks, though, never dicussed their ethnic origin.
A late comer to the study of the Sumerians and the Akkadians was Julius Oppert. Oppert was a German born of Jewish parents. He made it clear that the Chaldean and Akkadian people spoke different languages. He noted that the original founders of Mesopotamia civilization called themselves Ki-en-gi “land of the true lords”. It was the Semitic speakers who called themselves Akkadians.
Assyrians called the Ki-en-gi people Sumiritu “the sacred language”. Oppert popularized the Assyrian name Sumer, for the original founders of the civilization. Thus we have today the Akkadians and Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia.
Oppert began to popularize the idea that the Sumerians were related to the contemporary Altaic and Turanian speaking people, e.g., Turks and Magyar (Hungarian) speaking people. He made it clear that the Akkadians were Semites like himself . To support this idea Oppert pointed out that typological features between Sumerian and Altaic languages existed. This feature was agglutination.
The problem with identifying the Sumerians as descendants from contemporary Turanian speakers resulted from the fact that Sumerian and the Turkish languages are not genetically related. As a result Oppert began to criticize the work of Hincks (who was dead at the time) in relation to the identification of the Sumerian people as Turanian following the research of Rawlinson.
Oppert knew Rawlinson had used African languages to decipher cuneiform writing. But he did not compare the Sumerian to African languages, probably, due to the fact that he knew they were related given Rawlinson's earlier research.
It is strange to some observers that Oppert,never criticized Rawlinson who had proposed the Turanian origin of the Ki-en-gi (Sumerians). But this was not strange at all. Oppert did not attack Rawlinson who was still alive at the time because he knew that Rawlinson said the Sumerians were the original Scythic and Turanian people he called Kushites. Moreover, Rawlinson made it clear that both the Akkadians and Sumerians were Blacks. For Oppert to have debated this issue with Rawlinson, who deciphered the cuneiform script, would have meant that he would have had to accept the fact that Semites were Black. There was no way Oppert would have wanted to acknowledge his African heritage, given the Anti-Semitism experienced by Jews living in Europe.
Although Oppert successfully hid the recognition that the Akkadians and the Sumerians both refered to themselves as sag-gig-ga “black heads”, some researchers were unable to follow the status quo and ignore this reality. For example, Francois Lenormant, made it clear, following the research of Rawlinson, that the Elamite and Sumerians spoke genetically related languages. This idea was hard to reconcile with the depiction of people on the monuments of Iran, especially the Behistun monument, which depicted Negroes (with curly hair and beards) representing the Assyrians, Jews and Elamites who ruled the area. As a result, Oppert began the myth that the Sumerian languages was isolated from other languages spoken in the world evethough it shared typological features with the Altaic languages. Oppert taught Akkadian-Sumerian in many of the leading Universities in France and Germany. Many of his students soon began to dominate the Academe, or held chairs in Sumerian and Akkadian studies these researchers continued to perpetuate the myth that the Elamite and Sumerian languages were not related.
There was no way to keep from researchers who read the original Sumerian, Akkadian and Assyrian text that these people recognized that they were ethnically Blacks. This fact was made clear by Albert Terrien de LaCouperie. Born in France, de LaCouperie was a well known linguist and China expert. Although native of France most of his writings are in English. In the journal he published called the Babylonian and Oriental Record, he outlined many aspects of ancient history. In these pages he made it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and even the Assyrians who called themselves şalmat kakkadi ‘black headed people”, were all Blacks of Kushite origin. Eventhough de LaCouperie taught at the University of London, the prestige of Oppert, and the fact that the main centers for Sumero-Akkadian studies in France and Germany were founded by Oppert and or his students led to researchers ignoring the evidence that the Sumerians , Akkadians and Assyrians were Black.
In summary, the cuneiform evidence makes it clear that the Sumerians, Akkadians and Assyrians recognized themselves as Negroes: “black heads”. This fact was supported by the statues of Gudea, the Akkadians and Assyrians. Plus the Behistun monument made it clear that the Elamites were also Blacks.
The textual evidence also makes it clear that Oppert began the discussion of a typological relationship between Sumerian and Turkic languages. He also manufactured the idea that the Semites of Mesopotamia and Iran, the Assyrians and Akkadians were “whites”, like himself. Due to this brain washing, and whitening out of Blacks in history, many people today can look at depictions of Assyrians, Achamenians, and Akkadians and fail to see the Negro origin of these people.
To make the Sumerians “white” textbooks print pictures of artifacts dating to the Gutian rule of Lagash, to pass them off as the true originators of Sumerian civilization. No Gutian rulers of Lagash are recognized in the Sumerian King List.
Gutian .... Sumerian..
William Leo Hansberry gives a great discussion of the evidence of African Kushites ruling in Asia and Africa. Some ancient scholars noted that the first rulers of Elam were of Kushite ( Kerma ? ) origin.
Founder of Elamite civilization came from Kush in Africa. According to Strabo, the first Elamite colony at Susa was founded by Tithnus, a King of Kush. Strabo in Book 15, Chapter 3728 wrote that in fact it is claimed that Susa was founded by Tithonus Memnon's father, and his citadel bore the name Memnonium. The Susians are also called Cissians. Aeschylus, calls Memnon's mother Cissia.
William Leo Hansberry, African History Notebook, (1981) Volume 2 noted that:
In Persia the old Negroid element seems indeed to have been sufficiently powerful to maintain the overlord of the land. For the Negritic strain is clearly evident in statuary depicting members of the royal family ruling in the second millenium B.C.
Hundreds of years later, when Xerxes invaded Greece, the type was well represented in the Persian army. In the remote mountain regions bordering on Persia and Baluchistan, there is to be found at the present time a Negroid element which bears a remarkable resemblance to the type represented on the ancient mounments. Hence the Negritic or Ethiopian type has proved persistent in this area, and in ancient times it seems to have constituted numerically and socially an important factor in the population" (p.52) .
. Here is Cyrus
Check out my videos on the Asian Kushites: Click this Picture .
The ancients were sure the Kushites had founded the Elamite civilization. According to Strabo, the Roman geographer the first Elamite colony of Susa, was founded by Tithonus, a King of Kush, and father of Memnon. Strabo in Book 15,chapter 3,728, wrote that "In fact, it is claimed that Susa was founded by Tithonus Memnon's father, and that his citadel bore the name Memnonium. The Susians are also called Cissians; and Aeschylus, calls Memnon's mother Cissia.
There is textual evidence supporting a relationship between the founders of Sumer, Elam and Dilmun. Col. Henry Rawlinson , used textual evidence to determine that a link existed between the Mesopotamians to their ancestors in Africa . Rawlinson called these people Kushites.
There is a positive relationship between crania from Africa and Eurasia. The archaeologist Marcel-Auguste Dieulafoy (Dieulafoy,2004) and Hanberry (1981) maintains that their was a Sub-Saharan strain in Persia . These researchers maintain that it was evident that an Ethiopian dynasty ruled Elam from a perusal of its statuary of the royal family and members of the army ( Dieulafoy, 2004; Dieulafoy, 2010;Hansberry,1981). Dieulafoy (2010 ) noted that the textual evidence and iconography make it clear that the Elamites were Africans, and part of the Kushite confederation .Dieulafoy (2010) made it clear that the Elamites at Susa were Sub-Saharan Africans.
Marcel Dieulafoy and M. de Quatrefages observed that the craniometrics of the ancient Elamites of Susa indicate that they were Sub-Saharan Africans or Negroes (Dieulafoy,2010). Ancient Sub-Saharan African skeletons have also been found in Mesopotamia (Tomczyk et al, 2010). The craniometric data indicates that continuity existed between ancient and medieval Sub-Saharan Africans in Mesopotamia (Ricault & Waelkens,2008).
Elam The most important Kushite colony in Iran was Elam. The Elamites like other Africans practiced the custom of matrilineal descent.
The history of Elam is usually divided into three periods the Kings of Awan, Kings of Simashki and the Sukkalmah period. For over 300 years the Elamite Kings of Awan ruled Elam, and much of Mesopotamia.Much of this period is unknown. During the 3rd Millennium B.C., the Elamites and Su people (a term used for mountain people in the Western Zagros) sacked Ur. The King of the Dynasty of Simaskhi, led to Elamite rule in Sumer. The first king of the Simashki Dynasty was Girnamme.
In Sumer, the Elamites contributed nuch to Sumerian civilization. The Elamite Kings of Sumer were called the Kings of Kish.
After a Sumerian King of Kish pushed the Elamites out of Mesopotamia, Elam went into a period of chaos until around 2500 B.C., when King Peli became the ruler of Elam. After Peli, there were six other Elamite Kings until Elam was conquered by Sargon of Akkad.
Before the Sukkalmah period (c.1900-1500 B.C.) much of what we know about Elam comes from the Akkadian sources. This period is called the Sukkalmah period, because the rulers of Elam were called Sukkalmah ‘grand regent”. The Elamite title for king ws sunkir.
During the Sukkahmah Dynasty there was a tripartite system of rule. The Susa text indicate that there was a senior ruler called sukkalmah ‘grand regent’ of Elam and Shimashki, he was usually the brother of the sukkahmah, and a junior co-regent, entitled sukkal of Susa. This nephew was usually from the maternal side of the King’s family. Thus the sukkal of Susa was often called the ruhusak ‘sister’s son’
The first rulers of the Sukkamah period was Eabarat (=Eparti). He was followed by the ruhusak Addahushu, the “sukkal and magustrate of the people of Susa”. He is known mostly for his building of several temples and the erection of his “justic stele” outlining the laws of Elam .
The Elamites/Old Persians were probably descendants of the Mande people. This is obvious in the language and names of the Elamite Kings. I hope you remember the book Roots, the main character Kunte Kinte. His name is interesting because we have the following ruler during the Sukkalmah Dynasty: Kutur-Nahhunte I (c. 1752) who conquered southern Babylonia The name Kutur Nahhunte, would correspond to a popular Mande name Kunte among the Mande speaking people. The Elamite name Peli, is also popular among the Mande, in the form of Pe, this name was also common among the Olmec people of ancient Mexico.
It should also be noted that the Mande term for people is Si, this corresponds to the word Su, used to designate the mountain people of Elam. The Elamite term Su would correspond to the Mande termSi-u (the /u/ is the plural suffix in the Mande language).
By the 2nd Millennium B.C., a new more aggressive dynasty appeared in Elam. The Kings of this Dynasty called themselves ‘divine messenger, father and king’ of Susa and Anzan. One of the rulers of this Dynasty was Shutruk-Nahhunte. Shutruk-Nahhunte, like Kutur invaded Mesopotamia and took Babylon around 1160B.C.
After Kutur took Babylon, the Elamites ruled Babylon until Hammurabi defeated the Elamite King Rin-Sin. Later the Elamites were driven from Larsa and other Sumerian cities back to the Susiana plains.
Rawlinson,H. “ Letter read at the meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on February 5, 1853”, The Athenaeum, (No. 1321) ,p.228.
Rawlinson,H. “Note on the early History of Babylonia”, Journal Royal Asiatic Soc., 15, 215-259.
Ricaut,F.X. and Waelkens.2008. Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzatine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements, Hum Biol, 80(5):535-564.
Tomczyk,J., Jedrychowska-Danska, K., Ploszaj,T & Witas H.W. (2010). Anthropological analysis of the osteological material from an ancient tomb (Early Bronze Age) from the middle Euphrates valley, Terqa (Syria) , International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, Retrieved 04/04/10 from (www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI:10.1002/oa.1150
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not sure THE DRAVIDIANS are Neolithics. They may be pre Neolithic the so called OOA metapopulation. The Harrapan Valley Indus Civilization were RECENT African Neolithics. Lazaridis et al, DNATRIBES, Sergi .....etc
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am not sure THE DRAVIDIANS are Neolithics. They may be pre Neolithic the so called OOA metapopulation. The Harrapan Valley Indus Civilization were RECENT African Neolithics. Lazaridis et al, DNATRIBES, Sergi .....etc
The Dravidians are not preneolithic, they belonged to the C-Group. Please cite the archaeological evidence that the Dravidians belonged to the OOA population. The Dravidians lived mainly in South India.The Megalithic culture associated with the Dravidians is identical to C-Group Culture.
The Harppans were Dravidians, who migrated from Saharan Africa into first Iran, and then India. The Indus Valley Civilization is related to the Sumerian, Magan (Egypt), and Meluhha (Punt) civilization. In the Sumerian text the Indus Valley was called Dilmun.
The OoA population was the Australians. The next group to invade Asia were the Munda people.
DNA data uniting Africans and Dravidians.
The Dravidians mainly carry the M haplogroup that is spread throughout Africa.
Dravidian speaking tribal groups share similar health problems as their African counterparts. Indian tribal groups have a high prevalence of the genetically transmitted sickle cell disorder (Mohanty, 1998; Kate, 2000). The sickle cell disorder is primarily found among the Kadaro, Irula and Pularya tribal populations (Aravanan, 1976,1980). The sickle cell disorder is an important indicator of a possible relationship between Dravidian speaking tribal groups and Africans since it is a hereditary blood disorder resulting from a defective hemoglobin state. It has two forms homozygous (suffer) and heterozygous (carrier). The distribution of sickle cell among tribal populations in India vary. But in many states the prevalence of sickle cell can range among the tribal population from between 10% -35% of the population (Kate, 2000). On average, if we look at the state of Maharastra, for example, as many as 10% can be carriers and 5% suffers (Kate,2000).
Y-Chromosome evidence of African Origin of Dravidian Agriculture
The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) allele distribution has been studied in India and West Africa. The HLA system provides us with a means to define the relatedness of varying ethnic groups. Polymorphic DNA variants allow us to make inferences about prehistoric interactions among populations. Using HLA we can determine the relatedness of populations. Shankarkumar, Sridharan and Pitchappan (2003) have done an extensive analysis of Nadar HLA. Ellis et al (2000) has studied the Fulani HLA system. The congruent Fulani and Nadar HLA alleles include A*101, A*0211, A*3303 and B*370 at low frequency. As illustrated in Table 2, the HLA with the greatest frequency between both groups was A*03011, B*3501 and B*51011. The presence of shared HLA genome indicates that a genetic relationship may exist between the Nadar and Fulani peoples. This finding supported the linguistic (Aravanan, 1979; Upadhyaya and Upadhyaya, 1979; Sergent, 1992; Winters, 2007, 2008), anthropological (Aravanan, 1976, 1980; Winters, 2008).
Ychromosome haplotypes. These haplotypes include Y-hg, T-M70 and H1. Table 3 indicates that Haplogroup T-M70 is found among several Dravidian speaking tribal groups in South India, including the Yerukul (or Kurru), Gonds and Kols. Y- haplogroup T-M70 is found in the eastern and southern regions of India (Trivedi et al., 2008). It has a relatively high frequency in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh (Sharma et al., 2009). Sharma et al (2009) in a study of 674 Dalits found that 89.39% belonged to Y-hg K*, in relation to Dravidian speakers it was revealed that Y-hg T-M70 was 11.1%.
Trevedi et al (2008) report that Y-hg T-M70 is predominately found among Upper Caste Dravidians at a frequency of 31.9. The highest frequency of T-M70 in the World is found among the Fulani (18%) of West Africa. Ramana et al. (2001) claims that the discovery of H1 and H2 haplotypes among the Siddis is a “signature” of their African ancestry. As a result, the Y-hg H1 subclade frequency among Dravidian speakers can also be considered as an indicator of an African- Dravidian connection.
The H1 haplotype is found among many Dravidians. Sengupta et al (2006) noted that the subclades H1 and H2 were found among 26% of the Dravidian speakers in their study, especially in Tamil Nadu. Trivedi et al (2008) found the Y-hg H1 frequency of 22.2 among Dravidian speakers in their study. Sharma et al (2009) reports a frequency rate of 25.2%. Researchers make it clear that although Africans and Dravidians share many phenotypical traits, they are not genetically related. But the research suggests that there are a number of HLAs and haplotypes shared by speakers of African and Dravidian languages.
Abstract Here recent studies of Nadar and Fulani HLA-A and HLA-B were compared to determine if these populations were related. The analysis revealed that the Nadar and Fulani populations share a number of unique alleles including A*101, A*0211, A*03011, A*3303, B*3501, B*3701, and B*51011. The study suggests a former residence of these diverse populations in same geographical area.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Please quote and cite Sergi on Harappa or the Indus in general.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: I am not sure THE DRAVIDIANS are Neolithics. They may be pre Neolithic the so called OOA metapopulation. The Harrapan Valley Indus Civilization were RECENT African Neolithics. Lazaridis et al, DNATRIBES, Sergi .....etc
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
First, the Fijians claim they came from Africa. We know a megalithic culture expanded from Africa into the Indian/Pacific Ocean areas after 2000 BC.
Pyramid of Mauritius
Secondly, African place names are found in the Pacific and correspondences between lexical items.
Common Terms:
English Manding Melanesian Polynesian
arrow bye,bya fana,pane fana,pana
Father baba babi papa
Man tye ta taga-ta
head ku tequ-qa tuku-noa
pot daga taga taga
vase bara pora,bora bora-bora
fish yege ige, ika ika
ox, cattle konga,gunga kede kuda
The ancient Austronesians cultivated rice, millet, yams and sugarcane. (Bellwood 1990, p.92)
It would appear that the Polynesians learned agriculture from the Manding as illustrated below:
Polynesian English Manding
*talun fallow, land daa
*tanem to plant, sow daa
*suluq torch, jet of flame suu
*kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
This evidence provides linguistic and anthropological support for the Fiji tradition. It is wrong that you guys deny a people history just because your European masters to do not present evidence in support of a native tradition.
If you keep waiting for Europeans to verify our history you will have a long wait.
Recently Williams John Page (1988) discussed the Lakato Hypothesis. The Lakato Hypothesis stated simply implies that the Melanesian people of Fiji were carried to the Pacific Islands by Indonesian maritime merchants after they had colonized parts of East and central Africa. In these Indonesian centers, Page (1988) believes that the Africans "gravitated into the Indonesian inspired trade". Page (1988) wrote that :
code:
"It is further suggested that the Lakato colonies in Africa were the principal contributors to the earliest settlements of Malagasy and responsible for the traces of Indonesian influence in Africa which have endured into modern times, as identified by previous investigators".
To support this hypothesis Page (1988) presents place names that are made up of African ethnic names (AEN) as roots for Fijian placenames. These toponyms include a multitude of hills, streams and villages composed of a simple AEN root plus a Fijian placenames e.g.,koro, wai-ni-, vatu and na-. Page (1988, p.34) found 270 AEN's forming part of Fijian place names (FPN). The interesting fact about the AEN and FPN cognates is that they are found in West Africa and not East Africa. (Page 1988, p.47)
This fact negates Page's (1988) hypothesis because there are no rivers in Africa that link East Africa and West Africa. This suggest that Africans who later settled West Africa must have been in the Pacific long before the Austronesians arrived on Madagascar. This view is supported by the fact that the classical mongoloid people did not arrive in the Pacific area until after 500 B.C.
Page (1988,p.66) believes that the AEN-FPN cognates are the result of the establishment of Indonesian colonies first along the Zambia river and from there into Central and Western Africa between the fourth and eleventh centuries A.D. During this period Bantu speakers are believed to have been incorporated into the Indonesian Lakota culture and between the eleventh to sixteenth A.D. settled in Melanesia by Lakota fleets. (Page 1988, p.66) Although Page's (1988,p.67) theory is interesting the fact that the AENs that are FPN's are prefixed to a multitude of hills, streams and villages" indicate that these place names are very old because the names for hills and streams are rarely changed.
Page (1988, p.67) noted four common prefixes used in the FPN's: Koro 'village,hill', wai-ni- 'water of'; vatu- 'stone'; and na- 'the'. These terms are closely related to Manding terms as illustrated below:
code:
FPN English Manding koro hill kuru koro village so-koro wai-ni water of ba-ni 'course of water' vatu stone bete na the ni
As illustrated above the AENs and Manding terms are analogous for 'hill', 'the' and 'of'. It would appear that the FPN /w/ corresponds to Manding /b/. Due to the thousands of miles separating the Manding and AENs, this cognate can be explained as loan words. Given the full agreement of these terms suggest a genetic relationship between AENs and Manding and descent from Paleo-African.
In addition to AENs serving as FPNs we find many toponyms in Oceania that corresponds to West African place names. Below we see 36 place names from Oceania and WestAfrica that share full correspondence. Manding ,Polynesian and Melanesian share many terms for kinship, dwellings, topographical features, dwellings and utensils.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition, to linguistic, genetic and archaeological evidence connecting the Dravidians and Niger-Congo speakers, both groups share similar place-names.
A recent article on Nigerian place names in India was published by Dr. R. Balakrishnan titled "African roots of the Dravidian-speaking Tribes: A case in Onomastics", International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, 34(1) (2005),pp.153-202.
Dr. Balakrishnan found almost 500 Nigerian placenames, and 46 tribal names in Koraput, India; and 110 ethnonyms of Koyas in Nigeria.
This led Dr. Balakrishnan to declare that :"However, the overwhelming evidence available from the toponymic corpuses of Koraput and Nigeria, and ethnonyms, surnames and personal names of Koyas seem more adequate to propose an African origin to the Koyas, the Dravidian speakers" (p.177)Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
. Central Asia was called Kush by the ancient people. The Armenians made it clear that the ancients called Persia, Media,Elam Aria, and the entire area between the Tigris and Indus rivers Kush.Bardesones, writing in his Book of the Laws of Countries, in the 2nd Century said that the "Bactrians who we called Qushani (or Kushans)".The Armenians, called the earlier Parthian: Kushan and acknowledged their connection with them. Homer, Herodotus, and the Roman scholar Strabo called southern Persia AETHIOPIA. The Greeks and Romans called the country east of Kerma: Kusan.
First, I would like to make it clear that the probable language of the Kushana was Tamil. According to Dravidian literature, the Kushana were called Kosars=Yakshas=Yueh chih/ Kushana. This literature maintains that when they entered India they either already spoke Tamil, or adopted the language upon settlement in India. In pinyin Yueh chih is pronounced: Yuezhi
The Kushana and the Yueh chih/ Yuezhi were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana-Yueh chih association are also discussed in Dravidian literature. V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago, note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih/ Yuezhi were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.
Many of the Yueh people were Dravidian speakers. The Yueh people were also called Yuehchih or Kuishuang (Kushana). In ancient times the Yueh chihs controlled Central Asia and much of China until the first century BC. In the Pali Chronicles, the Ramayana and Matsya, the Yuehchih were called Yakshas or Kosar. The Yueh of North China established Xia. According to the Yi Xia Dong Xi Shuo, by Fu Ssumein, the li Qiang (Black Qiang) of Shang were united with the Yueh people of southwest China. . . The Yuezhi allegedly arrived in India during the 2nd century BC. He makes it clear that the Yuezhi / Kushana as noted on their coins worshipped Siva as seen on the coins of Kanishka. This is why we have a coin of a Kushana king from Taxila, dated to AD 76 that declares that the king was maharaja rajatiraja devaputra Kushana "Great King, King of kings, Son of God, the Kushana".
The term Tochara has nothing to do with the Yuehchih, this was a term used to describe the people who took over the Greek Bactrian state, before the Kushana reached the Oxus Valley around 150 BC . There is no reason the Kushana may not have been intimately familiar with the Kharosthi writing at this time because from 202BC onward Prakrit and Chinese documents were written in Kharosthi.
The Kushana and the Yuezhi were one and the same. In addition to North Indian documents the Kushana- Yuezhi association are also discussed in Dravidian literature.V Kanakasabhai, The Tamils Eighteen hundred years ago note that in the Sanskrit literature the Yueh chih were called Yakshas, Pali chroniclers called them Yakkos and Kosars< Kushana.
Some researchers believe that the Ars'i spoke Tocharian A, while Tocharian B was the "Kucha language" may have been spoken by the Kushana people. I don't know where you read that the speakers of Tocharian A were called Ars'i. These names: Ars’i and kucha, have nothing to do with ethnic groups, they refer to the cities where Tocharian text were found: Tocharian A documents were found around Qarashar and Turfan, thusly these text are also referred to as Turfanian or East Tocharian; Tocharian B documents were found near the town of Kucha, thusly they are sometimes called Kuchean or West Tocharian.
Linguist use the term Tochari to refer to these people, because they were given this title in Turkic manuscripts . As a result, the word Tochari has nothing to do with the Kushana people. The observable evidence make it clear that the terms used to label the Tocharian dialects are not ethnonyms, they are terms used to denote where the Tocharian records were found. The use of the term Ars'i does not relate to the Kushana people. The terms: Asii, Pasiani, Tochari and Sacarauli, refer to the white nomads that took Bactria away from the Greeks—not the Yuezhi .
These white nomads came from the Iaxartes River that adjoins that of Sacae and the Sogdiani .The Kushana people took over Bactria much later. It is a mistake to believe that Ars'i and Kucha were ethnonyms is understandable given your lack of knowledge about Tocharian. And I will agree that there were a number of different languages spoken by people who wrote material in Tocharian. It is for this reason that I have maintained throughout my published works on Tocharian, that this was a trade language. See: Tocharian is a Dravidian trade language https://www.academia.edu/8491572/Is_Tocharian_a_Dravidian_Trade_Language
This Tocharian/Kushan language was used by the Central Asians as a lingua franca and trade language due to the numerous ethnic groups which formerly lived in central Asia". Kharosthi was long used to write in Central Asia. It was even used by the Greeks. The use of the Kharosthi writing system in Central Asia and India, would place this writing contemporaneous with the tradition, recorded by the Classical writers of Indians settling among the Kushana.
There were many people who probably used Tocharian for purposes of communication including the Kushana and the "Ars'i/Asii". They probably used Tocharian as a lingua franca. You make it clear in your last post that numerous languages were spoken in Central Asia when the Tocharian was written in Kharosthi. Most researchers believe that a majority of the people who lived in this area were bilingual and spoke Bactrian ,Indian languages among other languages. I agree with this theory, and believe that the Kushana Kings may have spoken a Dravidian language. Due to the possibility that the Kushana spoke a Dravidian language which is the substratum language of Tocharian; and the presence of a number of different terms in Tocharian from many languages spoken in the area-led me to the conclusion that Tocharian was a trade language. The Kushana always referred to themselves as the Kushana/Gushana. The name Kushana for this group is recorded in the Manikiala Stone inscription (56BC?), the Panjtar Stone inscription of 122 AD and the Taxila Silver Scroll.
The Greeks called them Kushana in the Karosthi inscriptions, and Kocano. In the Chinese sources they were called Koei-shuang or Kwei-shwang= Kushana, and Yueh chih .
As you can see the term Kushana had been used to refer to these people long before Kujula Kadphises used the term as a personal name. This was over a hundred years after the Kushana had become rulers of Bactria. It would appear from the evidence that the nation of the Kushana was called Kusha.
In 176 B.C., the Huns fell upon the in western Gansu,defeated their army and murdered their King. This battle led to the Kushana migration into Nanshan region, and thence to Bactria and North India. (Bagchi 1955, p.4)
The Kushana first occupied Transoxiana about 160 B.C. and established themselves in the Oxus Valley (Chi 1955, p.8) They later drove the Haumavorka Indo-European Saka people, from Bactria and founded the Kushana dynasty which lasted until the 3rd century A.D.
It was Kujuula Kadphises who united the Kushana people and made them into a single nation. Kadphises conquered India as far as the Indus. His capital was Purushapura near Peshwar, in Pakistan. Later Wiima Kadphises extended Kushana rule into the Punjab.
The Kushana conquered the Sakas and Parthians and took control of an empire stretching from the Oxus river in Afghanistan, to the Ganges plains of India.. This unite under one authority the former dominions of the Indo-Greeks and the Sunga dynasts.
The greatest king of the Kushana was Kaniska. Kaniska came to power between A.D. 78-144. (Thapar 1972, p.92)
Kaniska ruled an empire extending from Central Asia, to Varansi in the Ganges Valley. He supported the arts and repaired many Kushana monuments and cities.
Kaniska had two capitals. The capital in Central Asia was Bergraam or Kupura in Afghanistan, while in India the capital was established at Muthura.
The Kushana were not Vedic worshippers. As among the Egyptians and Nubians, the Kushana raised past kings to the status of "gods", and they dedicated temples to them.
The Kushana were great patrons of the Buddhists. They supported the Mahavana (Great Vehicle) school of Buddhism. Under the Kushana the Buddha, was depicted in the form of the Muthuras school. These Muthura school Buddhas had strong negroid features.
The Kushana king was called the raja or Maharajatiraja "king of Kings".
Another famous Kushana king, Kujula imitating the Roman denares (coins) was the first Asians to circulate coins in central Asia. It was Kaniska, who first put Buddha on Indian coins.
The Kushana made fine sculptures and engraved beautiful carved sheets of ivory. Their plaques are some of the finest art pieces in India.
. .
. The Kushana were at this time in control of the Silk Road, which took Chinese goods to the West. It was also under the Kushana that Buddhism entered China. The Kushana ruled India for almost 200 years.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics would distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] . The Loulan mummy is clearly phenotypically a Black or Negro person given the pigmentation of the mummy. Dravido-Africans had early settled Central and East Asia. The Loulan mummy was probably a Dravidian speaker.
Th Loulan mummy is NOT Negro according to crainiometrics
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics would distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] . The Loulan mummy is clearly phenotypically a Black or Negro person given the pigmentation of the mummy. Dravido-Africans had early settled Central and East Asia. The Loulan mummy was probably a Dravidian speaker.
Th Loulan mummy is NOT Negro according to crainiometrics
.
You don't know what you're talking about.
.
.
Dravido-Africans had early settled Central and East Asia. The Loulan mummy was probably a Dravidian speaker.
The Loulan mummy was found at Xiaole. The DNA of the DNA of the Xiaole people was mtDNA C4 and y-Chromosome haplogroups R1a1a, H and K (Li et al, 2010).
The Xiaole people mtDNA include many of the Pan-African haplotypes . The HVR1 motif was 16189-16192-163111. Xioale mtDNA hyplotypes include S1(16223) and S2 (16304). Li et al (2010) claim the mtDNA was C4, R* and M*..
The y-Chromosome SNPs were M89,M9,M45,M173 and M198. The y-Chromosomes of the Xiaole people were haplogroups R1a1a, H, and K. These y-chromosome haplogroups are common to the Dravidian and Siddi people in India (Winters,2010).
The Dravidian and Siddi people came from Africa (Winters, 2007a, 2008a,2008b,2010). The Dravidians belonged to the C-group people (Winters, 2007, 2008b). They migrated to Iran and India after 2600BC. The Dravidians carry African haplogroups M1 and y-chromosomes (Winters, 2008b,2010).
The Dravidians were called Yueh and Qing in the Chinese literature. Yueh people founded the Dongson culture of Southeast Asia. In Southeast Asia the Dravidians were called Yakshas or Kamboja (Winters,1986). In China the Yueh people founded the Shang Dynasty.
Xiaole mummies were representative of a Black population.There were probably no whites in Tarim basin at this time. They date back to a period after the Hua had defeated the Anyang-Shang and the racist Chinese-Mongoloids began to exterminate Blacks and push them back into Central Asia. In China the Mongoloids would sacrifice Blacks for good luck and blessings.
In conclusion the Loulan mummy was probably of Dravidian origin. The Dravidian origin of the Loulan mummy is supported by the Xiaole DNA that corresponds to Dravidian and African DNA>
References:
Li C1, Li H, Cui Y, Xie C, Cai D, Li W, Mair VH, Xu Z, Zhang Q, Abuduresule I, Jin L, Zhu H, Zhou H.(2010).Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age. BMC Biol. 2010 Feb 17;8:15. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-8-15. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15
Winters,C. A.(1986). "Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia", India Past and Present 3, no2: 225- 241.
Winters,C. 2007. Did the Dravidian Speakers Originate in Africa? BioEssays, 27(5): 497-498.
___________2007b. High Levels of Genetic Divergence across Indian Populations. PloS Genetics. Retrieved 4/8/2008 http://www.plosgenetics.
In Genesis 2:7, we read: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul….”This first man was named Adam in honor of the earth from which he was made. Adam means dark (red) or Black, which is the color of the earth. In The Secret Book of Enoch, 26:1-2, we read “AND I summoned the very lowest a second time, and said: 'Let Archas come forth hard,' and he came forth hard from the invisible.2 And Archas came forth, hard, heavy, and very Black. We also read in In The Secret Book of Enoch 30:10-11, “10 [Friday]. On the sixth day I commanded my wisdom to create man from seven consistencies: one, his flesh from the earth ; two, his blood from the dew; three, his eyes from the sun; four, his bones from stone; five, his intelligence from the swiftness of the angels and from cloud; six, his veins and his hair from the grass of the earth; seven, his soul from my breath and from the wind. 11 And I gave him seven natures: to the flesh hearing, the eyes for sight, to the soul smell, the veins for touch, the blood for taste, the bones for endurance, to the intelligence sweetness (sc. enjoyment).” God also named him , as noticed in 30:13, “13 And I appointed him a name, from the four component parts, from east, from west, from south, from north, and I appointed for him four special stars, and I called his name Adam, and showed him the two ways, the light and the darkness, and I told him: “
. .
This makes it clear that the original man of this era, was created from the earth and he was very “Black”, like the heavy Archas. We also learn that this original man was named Adam (Black) in honor of the material in which he was made.
This explains why the people of Egypt, Sumer and Xia China called themselves Blacks , based on the race memory that the original man was made of the earth and thusly: Black.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics would distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] . The Loulan mummy is clearly phenotypically a Black or Negro person given the pigmentation of the mummy. Dravido-Africans had early settled Central and East Asia. The Loulan mummy was probably a Dravidian speaker.
Th Loulan mummy is NOT Negro according to crainiometrics
Anybody who thinks this is crainiometrically Negro and crainiometrically distinguishable from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations is clearly out of their mind
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, I would have to disagree with the criteria of what constitutes as Negro in the context of negroid/mongoloid/caucasoid etc.
1 major issue I will like to point out from now, is that as of now, it is a scientific fact that all AMH came from OOA.
Lets compare Australian Aborigines and a Dravidian sub-grouping...for argumentative purposes - both are melanated (black) but non admixed dravidians don't have as much of a dynamic range of dilution. - both have relatively Tropically adapted proportions but the Aborigenes cluster closer to contemporary Africans - Craniometrics will cluster an unknown dravidian with caucasions and unknown Aborigines with either a Mongoloid or negroid group. - Dravidians have left africa more recently than the Aborigenes (According to you, quite significantly later).
So all in all the black "Caucasoid" is more culturally "black african" than our black Austrasian ...technically even though the Aborigenes cluster better with our modern "Black Africans" phenotypically. It would be scientifically dishonest to use such a broad criteria to classify such a term as "Negroid" or even negrito.... It should only describe the physical characteristics that is human morphology... more consistently craniometrics, limb proportion and hair texture. It should contribute to, but not be the basis of classifying race.
I agree we are still lingering on Eurocentric prejudices, I agree with AHA on this. We have established model on what a negro/oid is and we now know for a fact that the general African population including Afro descendants on the western hemisphere have extremely high genetic diversity which translates to phenotypic diversity. Both the terms Black and Negro have to be reestablished, or at least agreed upon in general definition.
Negroid pertaining to black is now nothing but a mere misnomer. Negro more so should define shape, Black more so should define color (when used in conjunction with "OIDS"), the combination of those and the inclusion of culture and even genetics should help classify race...
Here's an example of what I'm getting at in popculture. Rita Ora - Looks "black" to me - is very lightly pigmented and blonde - She, herself confirms that she is a white woman - Most of her Genetics were handed down from Caucasians or whites. - has very noticeable and prominent Negro morphological characteristics.
....She IS white though, but what would her craniometrics say?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: [QB] Clyde, I would have to disagree with the criteria of what constitutes as Negro in the context of negroid/mongoloid/caucasoid etc.
You have not quoted Clyde so it is not clear what particular thing he said you disagree with
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Clyde, I would have to disagree with the criteria of what constitutes as Negro in the context of negroid/mongoloid/Caucasoid etc.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: A negro is a person with:
1) Direct African ancestry X
2) Brown to yellow complexion. X
3) Long limbs ✓
4) shape of the head and face varies -/+
5) flat to semi pointed nose ( traditionally some Negro/Black people like to pinch the noses of their children )with dark skin ✓
6) curly to straight hair -/+
7) round to slanted eyes depending on the Negro group ✓-
Basically because..
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: So all in all the black "Caucasoid" is more culturally "black african" than our black Austrasian ...technically even though the Aborigenes cluster better with our modern "Black Africans" phenotypically. It would be scientifically dishonest to use such a broad criteria to classify such a term as "Negroid" or even negrito.... It should only describe the physical characteristics that is human morphology... more consistently craniometrics, limb proportion and hair texture. It should contribute to, but not be the basis of classifying race.
It appears Clyde uses Negro to define race, I am arguing against that... I believe it should strictly be used as a classification of a set of non pigment related physical traits. Direct African ancestry should have nothing to do with it... by the standard I'm proposing, regardless of the history of the Dravidian-African culture and connection, typical Dravidians should not be seen as Negroids, & I brought up Rita Ora for a reason.
And I'll reiterate, by this standardized classification of "Negroid" All "Subsaharan" or "black African" populations or people should not automatically classify as "Negroid." regardless of culture or pigmentation. A negro is not a race, its a Model with a set of biometeric standards and that's it.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I shouldn't have to tell you this, but crianiometrics would distinguish Negroes from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] . The Loulan mummy is clearly phenotypically a Black or Negro person given the pigmentation of the mummy. Dravido-Africans had early settled Central and East Asia. The Loulan mummy was probably a Dravidian speaker.
Th Loulan mummy is NOT Negro according to crainiometrics
Anybody who thinks this is crainiometrically Negro and crainiometrically distinguishable from Mongoloid or Caucasian populations is clearly out of their mind
Anyone who thinks like you is crazy, ignorant and racist.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Clyde, I would have to disagree with the criteria of what constitutes as Negro in the context of negroid/mongoloid/caucasoid etc.
1 major issue I will like to point out from now, is that as of now, it is a scientific fact that all AMH came from OOA.
Lets compare Australian Aborigines and a Dravidian sub-grouping...for argumentative purposes - both are melanated (black) but non admixed dravidians don't have as much of a dynamic range of dilution. - both have relatively Tropically adapted proportions but the Aborigenes cluster closer to contemporary Africans - Craniometrics will cluster an unknown dravidian with caucasions and unknown Aborigines with either a Mongoloid or negroid group. - Dravidians have left africa more recently than the Aborigenes (According to you, quite significantly later).
So all in all the black "Caucasoid" is more culturally "black african" than our black Austrasian ...technically even though the Aborigenes cluster better with our modern "Black Africans" phenotypically. It would be scientifically dishonest to use such a broad criteria to classify such a term as "Negroid" or even negrito.... It should only describe the physical characteristics that is human morphology... more consistently craniometrics, limb proportion and hair texture. It should contribute to, but not be the basis of classifying race.
I agree we are still lingering on Eurocentric prejudices, I agree with AHA on this. We have established model on what a negro/oid is and we now know for a fact that the general African population including Afro descendants on the western hemisphere have extremely high genetic diversity which translates to phenotypic diversity. Both the terms Black and Negro have to be reestablished, or at least agreed upon in general definition.
Negroid pertaining to black is now nothing but a mere misnomer. Negro more so should define shape, Black more so should define color (when used in conjunction with "OIDS"), the combination of those and the inclusion of culture and even genetics should help classify race...
Here's an example of what I'm getting at in popculture. Rita Ora - Looks "black" to me - is very lightly pigmented and blonde - She, herself confirms that she is a white woman - Most of her Genetics were handed down from Caucasians or whites. - has very noticeable and prominent Negro morphological characteristics.
....She IS white though, but what would her craniometrics say?
Your statements are sincere but they are based on a lack of knowledge and meditation. For example Ora Rita, has made cosmetic changes, in her outward appearence, but the structure of her face, underlying the cosmetic changes to make her outwardly appear Negroid, which are the craniometric measurements remain that of a caucasian white.
Thin noses and lips are associated with Europeans, but these features are frequently found among non-mixed Blacks, just like blond hair and blue eyes. The facial features of a person may not influence the craniometric measurements differentiate the races. As a result, there are slight differences between Veddoid and none Veddoid Dravidians, but they would all be classified as Blacks--not caucasian. Veddoid people like Australians have less primitive features.
Your comparison of Australians and Dravidians is a false anology. It is a fallacy because you believe the Dravidians are a monolithic population, when in reality they are mixed with the original Australian and Munda populations. This is obvious when we note that some Dravidians have Veddoid features. Veddoid, is the name for the original settlers of India, who were the Australians that made the first OoA exit.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
And I'll reiterate, by this standardized classification of "Negroid" All "Subsaharan" or "black African" populations or people should not automatically classify as "Negroid." regardless of culture or pigmentation. A negro is not a race, its a Model with a set of biometeric standards and that's it.
Different races exist.Race is not just a biometric standard.
This is the usual thought pattern of Europeans who want to deny races exist today because it places them in a minority status in relation to the races existing in the world. Formerly, Europeans embraced the reality of race, because they dominated the the races and felt that they were superior. The end of colonialism and raise of independent and prosperous non-European nations has made Europeans lose confidence and self-esteem based the idea that Europeans are racially superior to the other races.
Formerly Europeans taught the world that the two major ancient civilizations: Sumer and Egypt were founded by Europeans. Now that we have proven that the Sumerians and Egyptians were Blacks, i.e. Negroes, they want to say races don't exist so they can avoid facing the fact the River Valley Civilizations were created, built and maintained by the Negroes they claimed were inferior to the European race. This was proven by craniometric measurements.
Europeans hate Egyptsearch because here we spread the truth about ancient history.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To understand the negro in Africa and India, you have to recognize that the Black Africans and East Indians are not monolithic. There was five Negro populations (six if you include the Neanderthals). These populations were 1)the original anatomically modern humans, 2) Australians , 3)Khoisan, 4)Anu and 5) Sub-Saharan Africans. There were two populations Native to India the Veddoid and Munda. The Dravidian and Indo-Aryan speakers are recent migrants to India. The Veddoid Dravidians are representatives of the original settlers of India after the OoA event.
These various Negro populations represent subspecies in my opinion. The existence of Negro Subspecies is supported by the varied genomes carried by different Negro populations.
We are considered anatomically modern humans. Our species has never been assigned a true type specimen because, Homo sapiens are separated into different races and within the varied races there are different members of each race that vary in phenotypical features: e.g., Northern European blonds and dark haired southern Europeans. The same is true of Negroes or Blacks. The archaeological evidence, resulting from skeletal remains make it clear that there is no monolithic Black race. The earliest homo sapien negroes were Australians 100kya, next appear the Khoisan 30kya, 15kya the Anu or Pgymies and by 6kya modern Sub-Saharan Africans/Dravidians (e.g., Kushites).
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde, I'm not arguing the existence of multiple races, I believe we've already agreed to that somewhat it the past. Right now however I am speaking on the term Negro as a standalone term for Categorizing race. I'm not debating the details regarding the microcultures and migrational histories of modern black indoeuropeans, Neanderthals and austrasians and whether or not they should be classified in the same category as AfrAms or modern "SSA's" as a race.
I just believe it would be more progressive and much more transparent if we can agree to use "Negro(id)" as classification of a group of physical traits. For example... Boy and his sister, both black, both direct African and both have the same parents. The boy has Negro-Caucasian features and the Sister has Negro-Mongoloid features, this happened by chance spontaneously. They're of the same race but carry different biometric traits... One will not be more "black African" than the other.
quote: Clyde Winters: These various Negro populations represent subspecies in my opinion. The existence of Negro Subspecies is supported by the varied genomes carried by different Negro populations.
Me: All populations are a subset of a "Negroid" species, technically. Populations didn't just leave africa and became anew. Various traits in AMH were either Selected for or persisted and became prominent due to circumstance. Within africa itself, people didn't stop evolving, mutations didn't stop happening, It just so happens that there is less contributing factors from the environment on the African genome in comparisons to some or most OOA populations, which is why Africans have such a diverse genepool. You can classify all Black Africans as the same "race" but you shouldn't Classify them all as just "Negro(id)" based on the model we've been presented.
Clyde Winters: We are considered anatomically modern humans. Our species has never been assigned a true type specimen because, Homo sapiens are separated into different races and within the varied races there are different members of each race that vary in phenotypical features: e.g., Northern European blonds and dark haired southern Europeans. The same is true of Negroes or Blacks. The archaeological evidence, resulting from skeletal remains make it clear that there is no monolithic Black race. The earliest homo sapien negroes were Australians 100kya, next appear the Khoisan 30kya, 15kya the Anu or Pgymies and by 6kya modern Sub-Saharan Africans/Dravidians (e.g., Kushites).
1.Exactly! how do we go about establishing the classifications of these differences WITHIN a particular race or sub-population even... 2. We have here, phenotypically Negro populations that Diverged from an African population or subset of African, maybe "pre-San" population 100 thousand years ago. How can they realistically be more "African" as a race than southern European "Caucasians" who only probably start to diverge (at most) 10Kya. This is why we have to reestablish the way we look at & use the term Negro/Negrita.
Once again I hate to repeatedly use these oversimplified examples but look at the Native american Diaspora. You could have found traits from all of the big three physical classifications (Mongoloid,Negroid,Caucasians) across the Americas. But the natives are still more related to one another than any other subgroup, they're their own race. The negroid features of a subgroup do not make them more African, another groups Caucasian features do not make them more "European" or white.
quote:Clyde Winters: Your statements are sincere but they are based on a lack of knowledge and meditation. For example Ora Rita, has made cosmetic changes, in her outward appearance, but the structure of her face, underlying the cosmetic changes to make her outwardly appear Negroid, which are the craniometric measurements remain that of a Caucasian white.
Hmm, I did not Know that... I found it strange, how Afro she looked to me. shiiiit The Kardashians should have gotten whoever did her face to do theirsPosts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Clyde, I'm not arguing the existence of multiple races, I believe we've already agreed to that somewhat it the past. Right now however I am speaking on the term Negro as a standalone term for Categorizing race. I'm not debating the details regarding the microcultures and migrational histories of modern black indoeuropeans, Neanderthals and austrasians and whether or not they should be classified in the same category as AfrAms or modern "SSA's" as a race.
I just believe it would be more progressive and much more transparent if we can agree to use "Negro(id)" as classification of a group of physical traits. For example... Boy and his sister, both black, both direct African and both have the same parents. The boy has Negro-Caucasian features and the Sister has Negro-Mongoloid features, this happened by chance spontaneously. They're of the same race but carry different biometric traits... One will not be more "black African" than the other.
quote: Clyde Winters: These various Negro populations represent subspecies in my opinion. The existence of Negro Subspecies is supported by the varied genomes carried by different Negro populations.
Me: All populations are a subset of a "Negroid" species, technically. Populations didn't just leave africa and became anew. Various traits in AMH were either Selected for or persisted and became prominent due to circumstance. Within africa itself, people didn't stop evolving, mutations didn't stop happening, It just so happens that there is less contributing factors from the environment on the African genome in comparisons to some or most OOA populations, which is why Africans have such a diverse genepool. You can classify all Black Africans as the same "race" but you shouldn't Classify them all as just "Negro(id)" based on the model we've been presented.
Clyde Winters: We are considered anatomically modern humans. Our species has never been assigned a true type specimen because, Homo sapiens are separated into different races and within the varied races there are different members of each race that vary in phenotypical features: e.g., Northern European blonds and dark haired southern Europeans. The same is true of Negroes or Blacks. The archaeological evidence, resulting from skeletal remains make it clear that there is no monolithic Black race. The earliest homo sapien negroes were Australians 100kya, next appear the Khoisan 30kya, 15kya the Anu or Pgymies and by 6kya modern Sub-Saharan Africans/Dravidians (e.g., Kushites).
1.Exactly! how do we go about establishing the classifications of these differences WITHIN a particular race or sub-population even... 2. We have here, phenotypically Negro populations that Diverged from an African population or subset of African, maybe "pre-San" population 100 thousand years ago. How can they realistically be more "African" as a race than southern European "Caucasians" who only probably start to diverge (at most) 10Kya. This is why we have to reestablish the way we look at & use the term Negro/Negrita.
Once again I hate to repeatedly use these oversimplified examples but look at the Native american Diaspora. You could have found traits from all of the big three physical classifications (Mongoloid,Negroid,Caucasians) across the Americas. But the natives are still more related to one another than any other subgroup, they're their own race. The negroid features of a subgroup do not make them more African, another groups Caucasian features do not make them more "European" or white.
quote:Clyde Winters: Your statements are sincere but they are based on a lack of knowledge and meditation. For example Ora Rita, has made cosmetic changes, in her outward appearance, but the structure of her face, underlying the cosmetic changes to make her outwardly appear Negroid, which are the craniometric measurements remain that of a Caucasian white.
Hmm, I did not Know that... I found it strange, how Afro she looked to me. shiiiit The Kardashians should have gotten whoever did her face to do theirs
Again you are not looking at reality. There was not one native American population, there was two, one Negro and the other mongoloid. Researchers have noted that the mongoloid Native Americans were slightly different from the East Asians.
. The Black Native Americans were also Negroes.
.
.
.
We can end this discussion now since you have made up your mind on this issue.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clyde are you considering the straight hair and nose Indian a negro too? As I've seen a YouTube video talking about black Indians and they described a wooly hair and straight hair type. https://youtu.be/fxGX7Bmon5IPosts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
Elmaestro when you said " But the natives are still more related to one another than any other subgroup, they're their own race ", you were wrong. Native Americans are genetically closer to African Negroes, instead of mongoloid people. Mongoloid Native Americans are not their own race.
. There were five major migrations of Blacks into the Americas. The First, were probably Australian type Blacks who settled Brazil 100,000 years ago. The second group of Blacks to enter the Western Hemisphere were the Khoisan, they arrived in South America 30-45,000 years ago. By 15,000 BC, the Khoisan had introduced the Solutrean culture to North America. The Khoisan were followed by the Anu, or pgymy people after 10,000 BC. Other Africans made numerous migrations to America beginning around 2000 BC. Finally, during the Atlantic slave trade millions of Blacks were taken to the Americas by European slavers.
There is plenty of genetic evidence of an African presence in the Americas. First of all, you have to get away from the idea that Blacks left Africa only around 60kya. There were other migrations out of Africa. For example, the Khoisan who founded the Grimaldi/ Aurignacian culture in Europe left Africa around 40kya, and the Pygmy people who were usually referred to as the Anu, left Africa between 20-15kya. The pgymy people, as evidence of their presence on every continent had an extensive civilization in the past, eventhough , they are hunter-gatherers today.
There is no way the first Americans could have come from Asia, because the Beringa passage between Asia and the American continent did not become passable until after 12kya. But as early as 40kya there were American comunities in South America. I believe the first Africans to settle America were the Khoisan. The San would have carried the mtDNA haplogroup N into the Americas. The major American lineages A,B,C, are all descendent from haplogroup (hg) N.
The mtDNA haplogroups A2,B2 and X2a are daughter clades of N. Since hg N is carried by the Khoisan, this suggest an early presence of this population in the Americas, and supports an early expansion into the Americas.
The Khoisan was the first anatomically modern human population to settle Mexico and South America.
By 15kya we have a new population arriving in the Americas the Anu or pygmy people. There were numerous pygmy communities in South America.These pygmies probably were the first to introduce y-haplogroup R1b into the Americas. Other West African groups brought R1b and mtDNA N into the Americas between 2000BC and 1300 AD.
The presence of y-haplogroup R1b and the lineages descendenting from hg N is testimony to the Pre-Columbian presence of Blacks in the Americas.
The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B . This supports Carolina Bonilla et al view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population . It is interesting to note that the speakers of the Mixe and Mande languages share many linguistic features and mtDNA haplogroup A.
The presence of mtDNA haplogroup A among Native Americans does not mean Africans may have been representatives of the population from which Luzia originated. Haplogroup A is found among Mixe and Mixtecs .
The mtDNA A haplogroup common to Native Americans is also found among the Mande speaking people and some East Africans .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, which is common among Mexicans . In addition to the Mande speaking people of West Africa, Southeast Africa Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroup A . The Gullah people of North Carolina also carry haplogroups A and B .
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by the skeletons of the first African Americans, e.g., Luizia, Eva Nahron and the Olmec people. Luiza may have been of Khoisan origin, while Eva Nahron would probably date to the Anu expansion into the Americas.
Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast” .
Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa . Shimada et al , believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 . Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times.
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. James l. Gutherie in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization . Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
Native Americans carry a high frequency of R-M173 . The most predominate y-chromosome in North America is R-M173. R-M173 is found only in the Northeastern United States along with mtDNA haplogroup X (25%). Both haplogroups are found in Africa, but is absent in Siberia.
. There are varying frequencies of y-chromosome M-173 in Africa and Eurasia. Whereas only between 8% and 10% of M-173 is carried by Eurasians, 82% of the carriers of this y-chromosome are found in Africa.
This is very interesting given the presence on R-M173 is found among many American Indian groups (1-2, 12-14). R-M173 among the North American Algonquian group range from Ojibwe (79%), Chipewyan (62%), Seminole (50%), Cherokee (47%), Dogrib (40%) and Papago (38%) . These Indian groups hav a long association with Africans and many live in areas were Europeans found Black Native Americans.
Another interesting y-chromosome found in the Americas is haplogroup A1, common to many sub-Saharan Africans including the Pygmy/Anu people. Y-chromosome A1 is recognized as an African haplogroup. Ancient y-chromosome date was succesfully recovered from 24 skeletal samples of a total of 60 ancient individuals from Patagonia-Tierra del Fuego, dated to 100-400 years. Y-chromosome STRs (DYS434, DYS437, DYS439, DYS393, DYS391, DYS390, DYS19, DYS389I, DYS389II, and DYS388) . These Y-STR alleles are associated with African y-chromosomes .
It is obvious from the above that most Native American R lineages are not R-M269. And even you note that they are majority R-M173. This makes your entire argument bogus.
The fact remains that Khoisan, Pgymy , Fulani and etc., carry M269. This indicates that this y-chromosome was widespread in Africa.
It would have been easy for Africans to pass on R-M173 to Native Americas. They could have done this because many carriers of R-M173 were probably brought to America in the early days of Slavery.In fact most of the Black Native Americans who lived in the South and Northeast established communities before 1799, some as early as the 1500's in the Carolinas and Florida.
The year 1799 is an important date for Afro-Americans. It was after this date that the InterState Slavetrade began. During this slave trade the average slave was sold to another plantation and/or part of the United States by the age of five (5). This meant a lot of intramarriage This Interstate slave trade made the Afro-American population more "homogenous" than the pre-1799 population. It was during this period that the number of Afro-Americans carrying R-M173 probably declined.
Eventhough the Interstate slave trade probably made the Afro-American population more "homogenous" today around 14.30% Afro-Americans carry R-M269.
Finally there was never extensive intermarriage between Northeastern Native Americans and Europeans so they can not account for the spread of R-M173 among Native Americans .
In conclusion, the presence of mtDNA hg N and A; and the Y-chromosome hg R1b and A1, testify to the ancient African presence in the Americas, and the reality that Native Americans are not a separate race.
Bonilla C, Gutierrez G, Parra E J, Kline C, Shriver M D. (2005). Admixture of a rural population of the State of Guerrero,Mexico, Am J Phys Anthropol. Dec;128(4):861-9; and. Salas A, Richards M, De la Fe T, Lareu M V, Sobrino B, Sanchez-Diz P, Macaulay V, Carracedo A. (2002). The making of the West African mtDNA Landscape, Am J. Hum. Genet, 71:1082-1111. Jackson B A, Wilson J L, Kirbah S, Sidney S S, Bassie L, Alle J A D, McLean D C Garvey W T.(2005). Am J Phys Anthropol. 128:156-163.
Salas A, Richards M, De la Fe T, Lareu M V, Sobrino B, Sanchez-Diz P, Macaulay V, Carracedo A. (2002). The making of the West African mtDNA Landscape, Am J. Hum. Genet, 71:1082-1111.
Ely B, Wilson JL, Jackson F, Jackson BA: African-American mitochondrial DNAs often match mtDNAs found in multiple African ethnic groups. BMC Biol 2006, 4:34
R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
Makoto K. Shimada*, , Karuna Panchapakesan , Sarah A. Tishkoff , Alejandro Q. Nato, Jr* and Jody HeY, Divergent Haplotypes and Human History as Revealed in a Worldwide Survey of X-Linked DNA Sequence Variation, Molecular Biology and Evolution 2007 24(3):687-698
Martinez-Cruzado, J C, Toro-Labrador, G, Ho-Fung, V, Estevez-Montero, M A, Et al (2001). Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals substanial Native American ancestry in Puerto Rico,Human Biology, Aug 2001
James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
Clyde Winters. Is Native American R Y-Chromosome of African Origin? Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences. 2011,Vol. 3 , (6): 555-558. http://maxwellsci.com/print/crjbs/v3-555-558.pdf
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Clyde are you considering the straight hair and nose Indian a negro too? As I've seen a YouTube video talking about black Indians and they described a wooly hair and straight hair type. https://youtu.be/fxGX7Bmon5I
Yes. Why cant't Black Native Americans have thin noses and straight hair, people in Africa have these features?
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic