posted
It must be clear that ancient Brazilians want no part of the EU
I was following up the story about Luzia and learned that late 2018 some researchers announced that DNA studies indicated that the skull model was wrong and that Luiza was not related to Africans or Australians.
quote:In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian physical appearance of Luzia. Using DNA sequencing, the results showed that Luzia had Mongoloid features.[24] The bust of Luzia displaying African features was done in the 1990's. "However, skull shape isn't a reliable marker of ancestrality or geographic origin. Genetics is the best basis for this type of inference," Strauss explained. "The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia's people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today's Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia's people were entirely Amerindian."[25]
I am not an expert in this area, but if the skeleton (ie the skull) does not match what the DNA predicts then their models for predicting skeletal form from DNA must be wrong or inadequate.
I can't help feeling that 150 million people of African descent living in Brazil must be strong factor in these contortions, not to mention that the Negroid form is not restricted to African people, as Negritos like the Jarawa show. Apparently the skulls don't conform to the true negro stereotype.
I have to admit that I have no knowledge of DNA analysis. More knowledgeable members of ES can look into it and present us with their interpretations and conclusions.
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
Neves' conclusions have been challenged by research done by anthropologists Rolando González-José, Frank Williams and William Armelagos, who have shown in their studies that the cranio-facial variability could just be due to genetic drift and other factors affecting cranio-facial plasticity in Native Americans.[19][20][21]
A comparison in 2005 of Lagoa Santa specimens with modern Aimoré people of the same region also showed strong affinities, leading Neves to classify the Aimoré as Paleo-Indians
__________________
The Aimoré (Aymore, Aimboré) are one of several South American peoples of eastern Brazil called Botocudo in Portuguese (from botoque, a plug), in allusion to the wooden disks or tembetás worn in their lips and ears. Some called themselves Nac-nanuk or Nac-poruk, meaning "sons of the soil".[2] The last Aimoré group to retain their language are the Krenak.
The new face of South American people ScienceDaily November 12, 2018
“Surprisingly, the members of this first lineage of South Americans left no identifiable descendants among today’s Amerindians,” he said. “Some 9,000 years ago their DNA disappears completely from the fossil samples and is replaced by DNA from the first migratory wave, prior to the Clovis culture. All living Amerindians are descendants of this first wave. We don’t yet know why the genetic stock of the Lagoa Santa people disappeared.”
One possible reason for the disappearance of DNA from the second migration is that it was diluted in the DNA of the Amerindians who are descendants of the first wave and cannot be identified by existing methods of genetic analysis.
According to Tábita Hünemeier, a geneticist at the University of São Paulo’s Bioscience Institute (IB-USP) who took part in the research, “one of the main results of the study was the identification of Luzia’s people as genetically related to the Clovis culture, which dismantles the idea of two biological components and the possibility that there were two migrations to the Americas, one with African traits and the other with Asian traits.”
A new bust has replaced Luzia in the Brazilian scientific pantheon. Caroline Wilkinson, a forensic anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University in the UK and a disciple of Neave, has produced a facial reconstruction of one of the individuals exhumed at Lapa do Santo. The reconstruction was based on a retrodeformed digital model of the skull. -___________________________________________
posted
How about Naia from Mexico, and her facial reconstruction which strongly resembles a contemporary Khoisan woman?
How soon can we expect a new reconstruction of Naia based on a retrodeformed digital model of the skull?
We eagerly await it. These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!!
I am beginning to develop this funny feeling that some researchers of myriad ethnicities are retrodeforming the data they present to support their conclusions!!
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
Many fossil specimens exhibit deformations caused by taphonomic processes. Due to these deformations, even important specimens have to be excluded from morphometric analyses, impoverishing an already poor paleontological record. Techniques to retrodeform and virtually restore damaged (i.e. deformed) specimens are available, but these methods genenerally imply the use of a sparse set of bilateral landmarks, ignoring the fact that the distribution and amount of control points directly affects the result of the retrodeformation. We propose a method.....
There are five main stages of taphonomy: disarticulation, dispersal, accumulation, fossilization, and mechanical alteration.[4] The first stage, disarticulation, occurs as the organism decays and the bones are no longer held together by the flesh and tendons of the organism. Dispersal is the separation of pieces of an organism caused by natural events (i.e. floods, scavengers etc.). Accumulation occurs when there is a buildup of organic and/or inorganic materials in one location (scavengers or human behavior). When mineral rich groundwater permeates organic materials and fills the empty spaces, a fossil is formed. The final stage of taphonomy is mechanical alteration; these are the processes that physically alter the remains (i.e. freeze-thaw, compaction, transport, burial).[5] It should be added that these "stages" are not only successive, they interplay.
_____________________________
Reconstruction of Luzia skull by Caroline Wilkinson
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: How about Naia from Mexico, and her facial reconstruction which strongly resembles a contemporary Khoisan woman?
How soon can we expect a new reconstruction of Naia based on a retrodeformed digital model of the skull?
We eagerly await it. These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!!
I am beginning to develop this funny feeling that some researchers of myriad ethnicities are retrodeforming the data they present to support their conclusions!!
In reconstructions the nose and lips can't be predicted with high accuracy because the cartilage of the nose no longer exists in these bare skulls and lips are fleshy and could vary underneath similar bone structure. Also the jaw is missing on this skull. Many Asian people have crossover features with Africans but are more distant form Africans genetically than Europeans are. Another thing missing form these ancient bare skulls is that the hair type can't be determined
Anyway I'm not getting the intent of your comment.
you say
" These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!! "
Yet you argue with the newer interpretation of the skull that said the same thing - not African.
You say
" These nonsense theories that everybody came from Africa have to end. Pronto!! "
yet you put up a photo suggesting the reconstruction of Naia looks like an African
" Naia’s skull shape does not look like those of Native Americans, but the Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA D1 haplogroup directly links her to the modern Native peoples of the Americas."
Haplogroup D likely arose between the Caspian Sea and Lake Baikal 60,000 years before the present.[1] It is a descendant of haplogroup M.
It is found in Northeast Asia (including Siberia). Its subclade D1 (along with D2 and D4) is one of five haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas, the other being A,B,C and X.[2] Haplogroup D is also found quite frequently in central Asia,[3] where it makes up the second most common mtDNA clade (after H). Haplogroup D also appears at low frequency in northeastern Europe and southwestern Asia.
tudies of Korean mtDNA lineages have shown[4] that there is a high frequency of Haplogroup D4, which is the modal mtDNA haplogroup among Siberians. Haplogroup D4 is also the modal mtDNA haplogroup among Koreans.
Haplogroup D constitutes 5/100 of 1% of the mtDNA testing population at FTDNA. This is partly due to the fact that those of European ancestry tend to test DNA much more than other persons do, at least at FTDNA
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aren't certain Native American peoples in South America supposed to have admixture from a "Population Y" in East Asia that also contributed to Aboriginal Australians' ancestry? Maybe that accounts for the perceived "Australoidness" of those Paleo-American specimens?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I only read a little of the OP It immediately took me to the case of the Ancient One. His phenotype looks Ainu. His genotype is original North American.
In the Ancient One's day there were N Amer (Indians) who looked Ainu (pre-Japanese).
Now,thx 2 Luzia, we know there was a 'genetic Mongol' with AustrAfrMela looks about the face.
Data synthesis overrides bias expectations favoring one over the other and it reveals unexpected gene / flesh association.
Race is one complicated reality whether biological or physical, both or neither, something else or non-existant outside society.
posted
My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeYPosts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeY
Retouched means something already made was changed. That is not the case here The earliest Luzia reconstruction was made 20 years ago in 1999. ago. The later one was made by using more recent methods 2018 from scratch not by retouching the earlier reconstruction.
.
Luzia, by Richard Neave 1999
. ______________________________________________
Caroline Wilkinson 2018
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeY
Estudo contradiz teoria de povoamento da América e sugere que rosto de Luzia era diferente do que se pensava novembro 8, 2018
(translated from Portuguese) Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought November 8, 2018 admin
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years. Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America. Researchers at the University of Sao Paulo and Harvard released on Thursday (8) a discovery that contradicts the main theory of settlement of America. With the help of DNA extraction from buried fossils for over ten thousand years, they were able to evaluate the genetic code of the fossils to find out who our ancestors are. “Until very recently it was virtually technically impossible to extract DNA from very old bones. Because in the tropical environment that we live there is the degradation of organic matter in general and this also applies to DNA. It is very intense, ”said André Strauss, Professor at the USP Museum of Archeology and Ethnology. The work was done jointly by USP, Harvard University and the Max Planck Institute of Germany. The scientists studied nine human bones in the Lagoa Santa region of Minas Gerais. From the same archaeological sites of Luzia, the bones of a woman who would have lived more than 11,000 years ago and is considered the first Brazilian. 'New' features of the people of Luzia Simulation shows new features of Luzia TV globe The Luzia fossil - the oldest human in South America - was found in the rubble of the National Museum in Rio and had disappeared in the fire that destroyed the museum in early September. There are two theories for the arrival of humans to the American continents. The first says that we are descended from East Asian populations that crossed the Bering Strait - at the time, it still connected to North America - and descended to South America. But in the 1990s, a new theory was created. That the American territories were also populated by even older humans, the first who had already left Africa, crossed Asia, and would have come straight to the Americas until they reached Brazil. The idea came about because the researchers studied the measurements of Luzia's skull and found it to be wider than those of the Indians and more similar to those of Africans. But the result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different. With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense. “Genetic data point to the existence of a major migratory wave with possible secondary events involved. But roughly speaking, the scenario we have today is that 98% of Amerindian ancestry can be traced to a single reaches in America. In other words, the people of Luzia have come to America along with all the other populations that came from the Asian continent, ”said Strauss. Reconstruction of Luzia's face
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: My problem with retouched Lucia bust is the ambiguity with mongoloid in how euros narrowly defined it to mean Mongolian like in term of look without redefining it to include genetics because there are supposed African and native mixed populations in Latin American where some don't look like a darker,less mongoloid version of Pocahontas,I can guess why that is but some really don't look African and native mixed,like the afro Mexicans. https://youtu.be/CuwcygetSeY
If you look at recent reconstructions of ancient people by professional forensic artists they results still have significant differences so I don't take that much stock in them. With a bare skull the skin color, hair nose and lips have a lot of speculation due to real world differences of phenotypic traits, muscle, flesh and hair and eye fold type that overlay similar skulls.
2018 Luzia reconstruction, by Caroline Wilkinson
Luzia skull In my opinion this reconstruction does not look "Mongoloid" at all except for a slight prognathism The eye fold type would be speculation. However the forensic artist did not choose a Mongoloid eye fold. The nose is not flat and does not look typically mongoloid. The man looks like a North American or Asian Indian mixed with an African to me. He might also pass for a modern Egyptian or Tamil.
A lot of features cross over. Could be a lot of people and the skin tone pretty dark.
But it does look less stereotypical African to me. Is it more accurate than the 1999 reconstruction? I don't know. I don't think these reconstructions are that reliable.
So is this an example of the Max Plank institute saying to themselves "this reconstruction is a little too sub-saharan for our tastes can we do something about that?"
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Aren't certain Native American peoples in South America supposed to have admixture from a "Population Y" in East Asia that also contributed to Aboriginal Australians' ancestry? Maybe that accounts for the perceived "Australoidness" of those Paleo-American specimens?
Not just South Americans but Aleutian Islanders off the Alaskan coast also carry traces of this admixture as well. Such ancestry may account for the Australoid appearance or it may not. We won't know for sure until we get a better assessment of the crania of the Beringian peoples who were ancestral to Paleo-Americans while at the same time assessing the skulls of the so-called 'Population Y' or as I like to call them Basal East Asian.
Speaking of which, have you read the Nature paper last year on the Beringian children? It is very interesting and sheds some light on to the peopling of the Americas.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I only read a little of the OP It immediately took me to the case of the Ancient One. His phenotype looks Ainu. His genotype is original North American.
In the Ancient One's day there were N Amer (Indians) who looked Ainu (pre-Japanese).
Now,thx 2 Luzia, we know there was a 'genetic Mongol' with AustrAfrMela looks about the face.
Data synthesis overrides bias expectations favoring one over the other and it reveals unexpected gene / flesh association.
Race is one complicated reality whether biological or physical, both or neither, something else or non-existant outside society.
Right you are! This is the exact reason why I am very much interested in the ancestral populations of the Americas. For one, they connect Amerindians to ancestors in Asia, but as you say the cranio-morphological findings fly right in the face of long standing racial paradigms and forms a blatant paradox. I try to tell Africanists to pay attention to this because this holds ramifications for early African populations specifically in northeast Africa who also show ties to the early peopling of Eurasia.
Meanwhile we'll have to put up with peoples modern ethnic projections onto ancient peoples:
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The model of Luiza is based on a skull, which is an expression of the DNA found in it, if any. The skull was associated with Negroid and Australoid features and did not match the Mongoloid type (or whatever) associated with what I would assume to be contemporary Native Americans.
The whole notion of retrodeforming the skull to create a new model of Luzia looked is so agonizingly cringeworthy it makes me painfully uncomfortable. I even feel sorry for the academics who came up with this concept.
There are few questions to ask. Okay they found some DNA in ancient skeletons similar to Luzia.
The argument is that Luzia's DNA if any, or those of the lineage associated with her can't be found in the current Native American population. Luzia is related to an earlier population, Clovis or whatever, which isn't found in the current Native American population.
1. Were any reasonably intact skulls found in the set of skeletons which was used to create the new model of Luzia?
2. If intact DNA can't be extracted from Luzia, how did they relate her to other skeletons which may or may not have provided DNA to the point of creating a new model of a her appearance?
3. Through what rules, statistical correlations, associations, extrapolations did Richard Neave use to create the original appearance of Luzia? Where those rules unfounded? Would he have come to that form even if no association with Africans was made?
It is one thing to say that there is no DNA suggestive of African, Australoid or Melanesian origins, but to use that conclusion to invent a new skull and appearance when the physical skull in your hand indicates otherwise is just cringe.
This sounds like scientists making some discovery and being enticed or suborned into making a racially and social pleasing statement which can in no way be related or based or their discoveries. Funding must be secured.
So the closing conclusion goes this way to Amerindians, which includes the $5 Indians..
1. Luzia and her people may have been the first settlers in America, but their lineage died out anyway. So you can go to bed happily known that you have no devalued blood from Africans, Australians and Melanesians running in your veins.
2. The evidence suggest that Luzia was not African or Australian, so even if by some remote chance some of you are their descendants, you can be can be assured that you have no deprecated blood running through you.
3. Now we can come to the 12000 pound elephant in the room. Those 150 million Afro-descendientes waiting on the sideline to claim aboriginal status, and thus displacing you on the grounds that their cousins were the first settlers in America (God forbid if some of those here can claim direct descent from them). Us whites have nothing to fear from them now. (We are not so worried as your Native American political influence is quite minimal). All will be at peace. You Native Americans have nothing to fear from them displacing you, as for us whites we are so relieved that this matter as been scientifically settled with the appropriate matching propaganda.
Now where is xxyman when we need him?
-------------------- The Habsburg Agenda - Defending Western Christian civilization Posts: 890 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
DNA cannot and does not change a bone's shape.
The Amcient One's Amerind DNA has no effect on his Ainu skull.
Luzia's EastAsian DNA it simply cannot alter even one non-metric AustrAfrMela feature of her face bones.
Unbiased science must accept the fact there were once East Asians who looked like today's Oceania blacks and that they crossed to the Americas via Beringia too.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
^ One element of retrodeforamtion is "puzzle piecing". That is to estimate missing pieces. As we see here the lower jaw is missing.
More details on Luzia
wikipedia
Luzia woman
(excerpts)
Luzia was originally discovered in 1974 in a rock shelter by a joint French-Brazilian expedition that was working not far from Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
There were no other human remains at the site. New dating of the bones announced in 2013 confirmed that at an age of 10,030 ± 60 14C yr BP (11,243–11,710 cal BP), Luzia is one of the most ancient American human skeletons ever discovered.[9] Forensics have determined that Luzia died in her early 20s. Although flint tools were found nearby, hers were the only human remains found in Vermelha Cave.
The fossil of Luzia was believed to have been destroyed when the National Museum burned,(2018) according to officials,[10][11][12] but firefighters later discovered a human skull within the burned museum.[4] On October 19, 2018 it was announced that the Luzia skull was indeed found, but in a fragmented state.
Burned National Museum, Rio De Janeiro
_________________
The 11,500-year-old Luzia skeleton was found in a grotto in Lapa Vermelha, Pedro Leopoldo, in the state of Minas Gerais. Brazil
Close by is Lagoa Santa(Holy Lagoon) also in the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
The Danish palaeontologist Peter Wilhelm Lund, known as the father of Brazilian paleontology, discovered a cave in Lagoa Santa filled with human bones (15 skeletons) and megafauna (very large mammals) dating to the Pleistocene era.
Early human dispersals within the Americas 2018 Research Article J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar1 et al
Within that branch, Spirit Cave is closest toAnzick1, whereas Lagoa Santa is closest to southern SNA groups. Two of the Lagoa Santa individuals carry the same mtDNA haplogroup(D4h3a) as Anzick1 (Montana), yet three of the Lagoa Santa individuals harbor the same Y chromosome haplogroup as the Spirit Cave genome (Q-M848)(Nevada)
I am not that interested in the DNA. It is about the skull(s).
Did any of the other skeletons found provide intact skulls or fragments which could be used to model the appearance of those people?
Do you notice how the reconstruction doesn't resemble any race in particular?
This sounds like Star Trek technology. Take a sample of DNA, see what creatures on Earth must have had that DNA and project 400 million years into the future?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Unbiased science must accept the fact there were once East Asians who looked like today's Oceania blacks and that they crossed to the Americas via Beringia too.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
I don't doubt for a moment that the ancestors of all eastern non-African populations (including East Asians and Native Americans) would still have been dark-skinned ("black") people. However, if one of the papers Djehuti cited earlier is right that ancestral Native Americans went through a standstill in Beringia for several millennia prior to moving into North and South America, I would assume they had already evolved a certain level of depigmentation and other Arctic adaptations that their descendants would have inherited. The same could probably be said of their brethren in northeastern Asia who went on to evolve into the modern Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Austronesians, etc. I don't know if the first Native Americans would have arrived still looking like what you and I would call "black" in terms of soft-tissue traits.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Unbiased science must accept the fact there were once East Asians who looked like today's Oceania blacks and that they crossed to the Americas via Beringia too.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
I don't doubt for a moment that the ancestors of all eastern non-African populations (including East Asians and Native Americans) would still have been dark-skinned ("black") people. However, if one of the papers Djehuti cited earlier is right that ancestral Native Americans went through a standstill in Beringia for several millennia prior to moving into North and South America, I would assume they had already evolved a certain level of depigmentation and other Arctic adaptations that their descendants would have inherited. The same could probably be said of their brethren in northeastern Asia who went on to evolve into the modern Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Austronesians, etc. I don't know if the first Native Americans would have arrived still looking like what you and I would call "black" in terms of soft-tissue traits.
Actually there are quite a handful of indigenous peoples in the Americas that possessed features that are typically associated with so-called “Black” peoples and are still dark as Africans. Common to misbelief indigenous peoples are quite diverse in phenotype and do not need “race mixing” to explain how they look. They are apart of the same genetic family and they carried with them the same type of diversity, that is in Asia. Variation exist with indigenous peoples because of genetic drift and adaptation to their northern and tropical climate, thus the reason why some may look like this:
Inuit men
While others may look like this:
And remarkably some look like this:
The earliest migrations the into the Americas wasn’t across the Bering Strait bridge per se, but was along the coast of the Americas.
People who generally took this path may have contained some of their archaic features and moved into tropical and subtropical climates in the Americas, while others that remained in the northern climate may have some features that would be commonly known of Indigenous peoples.
An example of this contained phenotype are the Californian Indians whose features are commonly associated with those in the Pacific:
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You're neglecting forensics in favor of antiblack bias. Your response is nonsequitor. It's YOU assuming a simplistic 'either or' scenario and confusing color for features.
Strike it from the record and still it remains in jurors minds.
This is what I said. • the Ainu phenotype, Amerind genotype, Ancient One • the Oceania phenotype, East Asian genotype, Luzia rep early First Americans despite bigotted racial expectations.
Special pleading what black is. Omg 😱 Ha ha, ho ho, hee hee rotflmrbao
You ytes love doing that yet you have no doubts what a yellow or a white looks like from face bones.
Forensic racial anthropology, not you, defines what black yellow and white are. Nonmetrics makes Luzia an Oceanic type. All your wishology can't change face bone facts and you studied anthropology in university so I cant believe you don't know better.
Do I hafta post the ballistics? Karen Ramey Burns Forensic Anthropology Training Manual Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc (2013) pp 222-238
Black is color not phenotype.
• negroid • mongoloid • caucasoid are phenotypes not colors. Same for australoid, etc.
Stop trying to confuse people that negroid and black are synonymous. They aren't.
There are dark, if no black, caucasoids. There are yellow, white, and black mongoloids. It don't matter what you do or don't call black.
I'm talking phenotype not color. Luiza was an australoid/oceanic phenotype by skull and we know the range of soft tissue traits that properly apply. Doesn't matter if she was as black as a Melanesian or white as a northern Mongolian. That's not the issue so don't sidetrack with colour distraction. And don't act like Luzia eclipses the Ancient One. Again, no 'either or' simplicities
Reconstructors' racial bias is evident. Examine Luzia's skull between forehead and base of nose. The new version flat out invents a brow and nasal bridge unseen on the skull.
"Time alone oh time will tell" if anthropology will neglect forensics in reconstruction to favor anti-'negroid' racism.
We've seen it happen to the Grimaldi mother and child and to the Iwo Eleru fossil all in support of the insane "no negroes until after 4000 BCE" anthro dogma.
I don't doubt for a moment that the ancestors of all eastern non-African populations (including East Asians and Native Americans) would still have been dark-skinned ("black") people. However, if one of the papers Djehuti cited earlier is right that ancestral Native Americans went through a standstill in Beringia for several millennia prior to moving into North and South America, I would assume they had already evolved a certain level of depigmentation and other Arctic adaptations that their descendants would have inherited. The same could probably be said of their brethren in northeastern Asia who went on to evolve into the modern Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians, Austronesians, etc. I don't know if the first Native Americans would have arrived still looking like what you and I would call "black" in terms of soft-tissue traits.
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: The model of Luzia is based on a skull, which is an expression of the DNA found in it, if any. The skull was associated with Negroid and Australoid features and did not match the Mongoloid type (or whatever) associated with what I would assume to be contemporary Native Americans
Again you fail to realize that phenotype which is an expression of genes is NOT the same as genetic ancestry!
DNA retrieval from Luzia's skull is impossible because the skull has completely fossilized. However, DNA has been extracted and tested from skeletal remains from around the same region of Brazil contemporary to Luzia and DNA has also been tested from Naia girl of Mexico who is even older. These results show that despite the differences in morphology they are genetically ancestral to today's Native Americans!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes but the Max Planx institute literally changed the reconstructions because they felt the phenotype associated with it was not right for the genotype. There was literally no other reason to change the reconstruction.
To me it just shows how BS facial reconstructions are, given that a new company and artist can change it based on a whim.
I dont like to sound paranoid and conspiratorial but it seems like an Agenda is being pushed. I could be wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: The model of Luzia is based on a skull, which is an expression of the DNA found in it, if any. The skull was associated with Negroid and Australoid features and did not match the Mongoloid type (or whatever) associated with what I would assume to be contemporary Native Americans
Again you fail to realize that phenotype which is an expression of genes is NOT the same as genetic ancestry!
DNA retrieval from Luzia's skull is impossible because the skull has completely fossilized. However, DNA has been extracted and tested from skeletal remains from around the same region of Brazil contemporary to Luzia and DNA has also been tested from Naia girl of Mexico who is even older. These results show that despite the differences in morphology they are genetically ancestral to today's Native Americans!
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The Ancient One: genetically ancestral to North American Indians, racial biased phenotype bigots be damned.
Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
see how the top of the nose opening on the Luzia skull comes to a sharp point? That is only on one side because the bone is thin there and a shard broken off. If you look at the part next to the higher sharp point it is lower. That is where the real opening started at the lower point.
Like this one >
Australian aboriginal skull type, model
However looking at the first view of the Luzia and this other one >>
This does not seems to have as thick bulging brow ridges as the Australian model skull. It also resembles some African skulls and they have less prominent brow ridges than Australians
Luzia cast from skull
A little bulgier looking here
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yes but the Max Planx institute literally changed the reconstructions because they felt the phenotype associated with it was not right for the genotype. There was literally no other reason to change the reconstruction.
To me it just shows how BS facial reconstructions are, given that a new company and artist can change it based on a whim.
I don't like to sound paranoid and conspiratorial but it seems like an Agenda is being pushed. I could be wrong.
Oh I see now. They're doing the same thing that's been done for reconstructions of ancient Egyptians. Recall how many recons were made of King Tut-- 8 or 9? Maybe more? And more recently the Younger Lady previously called 'Nefertiti'.
This is why I've never been a big fan of facial reconstructions unless the scientists doing them are double-blinded to exclude bias. Forensic anthropologist and facial reconstruction expert Caroline Wilkinson concisely explains the issue in her 2010 paper here. Basically, she notes the problem of experts taking artistic license more liberally when they are not double-blinded i.e. not knowing about the ethnic background of the subject they are working with. For example, when forensic artists are given crania with no information they tend to be more careful in their guesswork and don’t tend to project their own biases. This is why early reconstruction of King Tut or the Younger Lady not knowing who the skulls were, guessed that these were the skulls of African individuals and tend to portray them as such but teams who knew the identities gave rather white-wash versions.
In the case of the Paleo-Indian skulls, I think the first versions tend to be better because although there was some bias in regards to what their features looked like—European in the case of Kennewick Man or African in the case of Luzia, there’s no denying that these individuals did indeed possess such features.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Recall the Lagoa Santa man called Apiuna:
His and other prehistoric folk of South America were indeed tested and shown ancestral ties to modern Native Americans.
And yet the findings of the 2005 Neves & Hubbe cranial study still holds true: Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
Yet the genetics does not match the alleged craniometric affinities.
Early Americans moved into prehistoric South America in at least three migratory waves, a study proposes. Ancestral people who crossed from Siberia into Alaska first gave rise to groups that settled North America (gray arrows). The first wave of North Americans (blue) were related to Clovis people, represented by a 12,600-year-old toddler from Montana called Anzick-1. They moved into South America at least 11,000 years ago, followed by a second wave (green) whose descendants contributed most of the indigenous ancestry among South Americans today. A third migration wave (yellow) from a group that lived near California’s Channel Island moved into the Central Andes about 4,200 years ago. Dotted areas indicate that people there today still have that genetic ancestry.
quote:Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
As was brought up many times in this forum there are indeed modern Indigenous Americans whose complexions are dark enough to be labeled as 'black'. So if the Paleo-Indians were that dark or something approaching it wouldn't surprise me. I am still of the opinion that one of the earliest if not the earliest waves of migration into the Americas from Asia took place along a coastal route south of Beringia if not a direct Pacific passage from Oceania itself.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The Ancient One: genetically ancestral to North American Indians, racial biased phenotype bigots be damned.
Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
My assumption has been that at least part of the lighter skin found in most Native Americans today was inherited from their common ancestors with Northeast Asians. That's why I haven't been so crazy for the claim that they were still "black" upon moving into the Americas from Beringia. I would be more open to that argument if one could show that the relatively light skin in Natives today evolved separately from what you see in their East Asian relatives.
That said, I wonder what ethnic group this individual (whose photo Baalberith posted) comes from? I know Euronuts like to use suntanning to write off AE depictions of themselves as cocoa or mahogany-skinned, but I wouldn't rule out a suntan in the case of this Native American guy. What do other people in his nation look like?
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: He's a tarahumara,they're known as being great long distance runners.
Looking up photos of them, and some do seem to be quite brown. I suppose that the only way we'll learn how the earliest Native peoples would have looked is analyzing aDNA to see whether they share any of the light-skin alleles found in modern East Asians. If not, it could be that most Native Americans turned lighter through convergent evolution rather than inheriting it all from their Beringian ancestors.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I've never been a big fan of facial reconstructions unless the scientists doing them are double-blinded to exclude bias. Forensic anthropologist and facial reconstruction expert Caroline Wilkinson concisely explains the issue in her 2010 paper here. Basically, she notes the problem of experts taking artistic license more liberally when they are not double-blinded i.e. not knowing about the ethnic background of the subject they are working with.
Definition of double-blind
: of, relating to, or being an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know which subjects are in the test and control groups during the actual course of the experiments
excerpts:
(note "double blind" is not mentioned only "blind" in the article)
Facial reconstruction – anatomical art or artistic anatomy? Caroline Wilkinson
Issues of artistic licence and scientific rigour, in relation to soft tissue reconstruction, anatomical variation and skeletal assessment, are discussed. The need for artistic interpretation is greatest where only skeletal material is available, particularly for the morphology of the ears and mouth, and with the skin for an ageing adult. The greatest accuracy is possible when information is available from preserved soft tissue, from a portrait, or from a pathological condition or healed injury.
Typically, practitioners will show an image of the reconstruction next to an ante-mortem photograph of the identified individual to illustrate the accuracy of the technique (Suzuki, 1975; Haglund & Raey, 1991; Phillips et al. 1996). As only the successful cases are shown in this way, this is not an impartial assessment, and blind studies must be utilized to rigorously analyze the reliability of the techniques. However, the inherent flaw in the majority of blind studies is that it is practically and ethically difficult to represent a forensic scenario based on familiar face recognition (as access to skulls of known identity along with access to relatives of the deceased is almost impossible to achieve), so these blind studies often rely on unfamiliar face recognition and evaluation. The problems associated with the recognition of unfamiliar faces were highlighted by Kemp et al. (1997) who recorded extremely high error rates in the verification of identity from photo-ID cards. This was further demonstrated by Bruce et al. (1999), who investigated matching of unfamiliar target faces from high quality video stills against photographic arrays. The recognition rate was only 70% (where the rate by chance was 10%), despite the fact that the target still was taken on the same day as the array photograph. The recognition rates decreased further when unmatched views or expressions were employed. This research suggests that we are not as accomplished at unfamiliar face recognition as familiar face recognition, where the recognition rates are closer to 90% (Burton et al. 1999), and that different neural mechanisms may be utilized (Bruce & Young, 1986).
The use of portraits for surface detail
Occasionally portraits may be available for use as reference material for the addition of surface detail, such as fatness, age-related changes, skin colour, eye colour, hairstyle and colour and facial hair. In these circumstances the resulting facial reconstructions can be considered more reliable in terms of resemblance. Usually the facial reconstruction process from skull to face is carried out blind to the portrait and then the surface detail is added to depict the face from the past more reliably.
____________________________________
^ the mention of blind analysis is oriented toward criminal investigations involving face matching
When Seeing should not be Believing: Photographs, Credit Cards and Fraud Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1997
This paper describes a field study designed to examine the utility of photo‐credit cards by assessing the accuracy with which supermarket cashiers could identify whether the photographs on credit cards depicted the person tendering them. The results demonstrate that the task of matching the photograph to the shopper is much more difficult than might be expected, and that even under optimized conditions, performance is poor. It is concluded that the introduction of photographs on credit cards would have little effect on the detection of fraud at the point of sale. _____________________________________
This Wilkinson article is not talking about a need for blind reconstruction so that the forensic artist is unbiased. It suggests the opposite that while blind studies are useful in testing methodology it is statistically more accurate to include background information when trying to identify a specimen. That is apparently what happened when she re-did the Luzia image.
The need for artistic interpretation is greatest where only skeletal material is available, particularly for the morphology of the ears and mouth, and with the skin for an ageing adult....
Traditionally the nose has been considered a feature with poor levels of reconstruction accuracy and there have been many studies assessing the relationship between the configuration of the nasal tissue with the bones surrounding the nasal aperture
So she was looking only at a skull. No skin tone, and the fleshy parts variable and the nose variable in shape (but less variable in width"
so 19 years after Richard Neves made the first 1999 reconstruction of Luzia dated 11.5kya they did a DNA analysis of other remains nearby that were dated 10.4 kya and the DNA was of the Americas.
It seems that data may have influenced the artistic interpretation used by the forensic artist in creating the reconstruction or "retrodeformation" .
But that is not to be likened to something like a Fayum mummy painting informing an analysis of a skull.
So both the blind reconstruction is lacking and the non-blind reconstruction could be more accurate -or less accurate due to the interpretation of the external information. (and possibly politics)
I don't take much stock in these reconstructions. The often seem to me to be made for the public and museum displays.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Native Americans share Agouti signaling protien gene variation as well as Melanocortin 1 with mutated Eurasians and Africans and other minor coding pigment related genes (Tyrosinase and OCA2).... They are fixed for derived Agouti which explains their Vedic tone despite heavy pigmentation... (You know the look of a very tanned non black African/PNG person.)
I don't think there is much evidence of convergent evolution per say but there is always a chance that light Amerindians before transatlantic movements had unique depigmentation variants. however I heavily doubt they were wide spread on a "sweeping selection" level.... They were called redskins or copper skinned for a reason.
See norton 2007 for more information.
Also I doubt the possibility that they had shared the variants (rs1800414, rs74653330) responsible for the "Extreme fairness" among modern east asians. They dispersed to recently.... especially the latter (rs74653330) which is twice as effective in depigmentation, and isn't even found that frequently in preneolithic ancient Asians.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
head shape and facial features are both factors in attempts to identify the ancestry of the skull
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I was following up the story about Luzia and learned that late 2018 some researchers announced that DNA studies indicated that the skull model was wrong and that Luiza was not related to Africans or Australians.
quote:In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian physical appearance of Luzia. Using DNA sequencing, the results showed that Luzia had Mongoloid features.[24] The bust of Luzia displaying African features was done in the 1990's. "However, skull shape isn't a reliable marker of ancestrality or geographic origin. Genetics is the best basis for this type of inference," Strauss explained. "The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia's people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today's Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia's people were entirely Amerindian."[25]
I am not an expert in this area, but if the skeleton (ie the skull) does not match what the DNA predicts then their models for predicting skeletal form from DNA must be wrong or inadequate.
above reference [24]
Estudo contradiz teoria de povoamento da América e sugere que rosto de Luzia era diferente do que se pensava novembro 8, 2018 admin
excerpt translated from Portuguese
Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought November 8, 2018
quote: Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought November 8, 2018 admin
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years. Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America. Researchers at the University of Sao Paulo and Harvard released on Thursday (8) a discovery that contradicts the main theory of settlement of America. With the help of DNA extraction from buried fossils for over ten thousand years, they were able to evaluate the genetic code of the fossils to find out who our ancestors are. “Until very recently it was virtually technically impossible to extract DNA from very old bones. Because in the tropical environment that we live there is the degradation of organic matter in general and this also applies to DNA. It is very intense, ”said André Strauss, Professor at the USP Museum of Archeology and Ethnology. The work was done jointly by USP, Harvard University and the Max Planck Institute of Germany. The scientists studied nine human bones in the Lagoa Santa region of Minas Gerais. From the same archaeological sites of Luzia, the bones of a woman who would have lived more than 11,000 years ago and is considered the first Brazilian. 'New' features of the people of Luzia Simulation shows new features of Luzia TV globe The Luzia fossil - the oldest human in South America - was found in the rubble of the National Museum in Rio and had disappeared in the fire that destroyed the museum in early September. There are two theories for the arrival of humans to the American continents. The first says that we are descended from East Asian populations that crossed the Bering Strait - at the time, it still connected to North America - and descended to South America. But in the 1990s, a new theory was created. That the American territories were also populated by even older humans, the first who had already left Africa, crossed Asia, and would have come straight to the Americas, until they reached Brazil. The idea came about because the researchers studied the measurements of Luzia's skull and found it to be wider than those of the Indians and more similar to those of Africans. But the result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different. With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense. “Genetic data point to the existence of a major migratory wave with possible secondary events involved. But roughly speaking, the scenario we have today is that 98% of Amerindian ancestry can be traced to a single reaches in America. In other words, the people of Luzia have come to America along with all the other populations that came from the Asian continent, ”said Strauss. Reconstruction of Luzia's face TV globe
^^ as we can see they don't use the term mongoloid nor in the Portuguese version
following is the primary research article the above is based on. Luzia is not mentioned. The research is about other remains nearby and then in later science magazine articles it was related to Luzia. "Mongolid" is not mentioned, nor is "skull" This is DNA analysis
(excerpts but there is a lot more at link)
Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America Cosimo Posth 45 Nathan Nakatsuka 45 Iosif Lazaridis Lars Fehren-Schmitz 46 Johannes Krause 46 David Reich
Highlights
• Genome-wide analysis of 49 Central and South Americans up to ∼11,000 years old • Two previously unknown genetic exchanges between North and South America • Distinct link between a Clovis culture-associated genome and the oldest South Americans • Continent-wide replacement of Clovis-associated ancestry beginning at least 9,000 years ago
Summary We report genome-wide ancient DNA from 49 individuals forming four parallel time transects in Belize, Brazil, the Central Andes, and the Southern Cone, each dating to at least ∼9,000 years ago. The common ancestral population radiated rapidly from just one of the two early branches that contributed to Native Americans today. We document two previously unappreciated streams of gene flow between North and South America. One affected the Central Andes by ∼4,200 years ago, while the other explains an affinity between the oldest North American genome associated with the Clovis culture and the oldest Central and South Americans from Chile, Brazil, and Belize. However, this was not the primary source for later South Americans, as the other ancient individuals derive from lineages without specific affinity to the Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a population replacement that began at least 9,000 years ago and was followed by substantial population continuity in multiple regions.
The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people. For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (from the site of Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Cone individuals.
Previous studies have suggested that present-day groups like Surui from Amazonia harbor ancestry from a source termed “Population Y” (Raghavan et al., 2015 , Skoglund et al., 2015 ), which shared alleles at an elevated rate with Australasian groups (Onge, Papuan, and Australians) as well as the ∼40,000 BP Tianyuan individual from China (Yang et al., 2017 ).
Recent analyses have also shown that some groups in Brazil share more alleles with Australasians (indigenous New Guineans, Australians, and Andaman Islanders) (Raghavan et al., 2015 , Skoglund et al., 2015 ) and an ∼40,000 BP individual from northern China (Yang et al., 2017 ) than do other Central and South Americans. Such patterns suggest that these groups do not entirely descend from a single homogeneous population and instead derive from a mixture of populations, one of which, Population Y, bore a distinctive affinity to Australasians. Notably, our study includes data from individuals such as those from the Lapa do Santo site who have a cranial morphology known as “Paleoamerican,” argued to indicate two distinct New-World-founding populations (von Cramon-Taubadel et al., 2017 ). Here, we test directly the hypothesis that a Paleoamerican cranial morphology was associated with a lineage distinct from the one that contributed to other Native Americans (whether the proposed Population Y or another)
Most important, our discovery that the Clovis-associated Anzick-1(Montana) genome at ∼12,800 BP shares distinctive ancestry with the oldest Chilean, Brazilian, and Belizean individuals supports the hypothesis that an expansion of people who spread the Clovis culture in North America also affected Central and South America, as expected if the spread of the Fishtail Complex in Central and South America and the Clovis Complex in North America were part of the same phenomenon (direct confirmation would require ancient DNA from a Fishtail-context) (Pearson, 2017 ). However, the fact that the great majority of ancestry of later South Americans lacks specific affinity to Anzick-1 rules out the hypothesis of a homogeneous founding population. Thus, if Clovis-related expansions were responsible for the peopling of South America, it must have been a complex scenario involving arrival in the Americas of sub-structured lineages with and without specific Anzick-1 affinity, with the one with Anzick-1 affinity making a minimal long-term contribution. While we cannot at present determine when the non-Anzick-1 associated lineages first arrived in South America, we can place an upper bound on the date of the spread to South America of all the lineages represented in our sampled ancient genomes as all are ANC-A and thus must have diversified after the ANC-A/ANC-B split estimated to have occurred ∼17,500–14,600 BP
This tree recapitulates the star-like phylogeny of the founding Southern Native American mtDNA haplogroups A2, B2, C1b, C1c, C1d, D1 and D4h3a reported previously (Tamm et al., 2007 ). We report five new Central and South American individuals belonging to the rare haplogroup D4h3a (3 Brazil, 1 Chile, 1 Belize), which among ancient individuals has been identified so far only in two individuals from the North American Northwest Coast (Lindo et al., 2017 ) and in the Anzick-1 individual (Rasmussen et al., 2014 ) but not in Southern Ontario, ancient Californians (Scheib et al., 2018 ), or Western South America (Llamas et al., 2016 ) where it has the highest frequency today (Perego et al., 2009 ). Previously this haplogroup was hypothesized to be a possible marker of human dispersal along the Pacific coast, but its presence in early individuals from Belize and Brazil (as well as in the inland Anzick-1 genome from Montana in the U.S.A.) suggests an ancient spread toward the Atlantic coast as well with its lower frequency there today being due to population replacement or to genetic drift.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ the primary research article from Max Planck and including David Reich did not mention mongoloids or Asian morphology. They discovered haplogroups regarded as Native American
quote:mtDNA haplogroups A2, B2, C1b, C1c, C1d, D1 and D4h3a reported previously (Tamm et al., 2007 ). We report five new Central and South American individuals belonging to the rare haplogroup D4h3a (3 Brazil, 1 Chile, 1 Belize), which among ancient individuals has been identified so far only in two individuals from the North American Northwest Coast (Lindo et al., 2017 ) and in the Anzick-1 individual (Rasmussen et al., 2014
They related these ancient Brazilian, Chilean and Belize as bearing similarity to Anzick-1 is the name given to the remains of Paleo-Indian male infant found in south central Montana, U.S. in 1968 that date to 12,707–12,556 years BP.
This article was published in the journal Cell a group of 72 researchers from eight countries, affiliated with the University of São Paulo (USP) in Brazil, Harvard University in the United States, and Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany, among others.Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Habsburg Agenda: [QB] It must be clear that ancient Brazilians want no part of the EU
I was following up the story about Luzia and learned that late 2018 some researchers announced that DNA studies indicated that the skull model was wrong and that Luiza was not related to Africans or Australians.
quote:In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian physical appearance of Luzia. Using DNA sequencing, the results showed that Luzia had Mongoloid features.[24]
^^ this item where it said the results showed that "Luzia had Mongoloid features."
is not what the two articles released on the same day said. They were DNA research and did not discuss physical morphology or the word "mongoloid"
1)
Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America University of São Paulo and Harvard University, etc
I have just discovered that this digital image made by British anthropologist and forensic artist Caroline Wilkinson and shown in many articles with captions saying it is Luzia IS NOT LUZIA !! It is a young man dated 9K (Luzia, a female, is dated 11.5K), 2,500 year difference
Comparison between Richard Neave's 1999 facial reconstruction of Luzia and another skull from Lagoa Santa, now done by Caroline Wilkinson, based on new genetic evidence of the ancestry of the people of Lagoa Santa. 3D modeling by André Strauss / MAE-USP
Genetic data extracted from the DNA of skeletons buried in a cave in Minas Gerais are giving a new face to Brazilian prehistory and, in a way, helping to rewrite 20,000 years of settlement history in the Americas.
The most striking result concerns the so-called Luzia People, who inhabited the Lagoa Santa region near Belo Horizonte between 12,000 and 9,000 years ago, and whose group's name refers to their most illustrious character, Luzia, a A woman in her early twenties whose skull was found by archaeologists in the 1970s - and nearly destroyed in the fire of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro two months ago.
Contrary to something that had been proposed for more than two decades, based mainly on morphological analyzes of Luzia's skull, the new genetic evidence suggests "categorically", According to the researchers, there is no kinship relationship between the Luzia People and ancient populations of Africa or Australia.
"Therefore, the hypothesis that the Luzia people would represent an earlier migratory wave to the ancestors of the current indigenous people is not confirmed," state the Brazilian authors of the study, published today in the journal Cell . “On the contrary, DNA shows that the people of Luzia have totally Amerindian genetics”
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
Facial reconstruction of the People of Luzia by Caroline Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University in England, based on a retroformed digital skull model of the Lapa do Santo archaeological site. The skull used as a reference is from a young man, cataloged as Burial 26.
Doubt about the origin of the Luzia people arose in the 1990s, when anthropologist Walter Neves of the University of São Paulo described the Luzia skull (hitherto forgotten in the archives of the National Museum) as having a predominantly black and white morphology. 11,500 years old - older than any found in the Americas to date. To explain this, Neves postulated that Luzia and her people were representatives of a migratory wave prior to the one that gave rise to modern Amerindians. This first migration, he said, would have come from the same route as the Bering Strait - that is, also from Asia - but would be made up of individuals who still preserved a Negroid morphology rather than the Mongoloid features that predominate in today's indigenous peoples. It was this hypothesis that guided the facial reconstruction of Luzia by the British Richard Neave in 1999, giving it a more African than Asian appearance. At that time, it was not yet possible to analyze the DNA of human fossils, as is now done with the so-called "archeogenetics". The analyzes, therefore, were based solely on the morphology of the bones and the archaeological information associated with them. Neves was wanted by the report but declined to comment.
According to Strauss, Neves (who was his master's advisor at the USP Bioscience Institute) was right in proposing that the Luzia people represented a differentiated and eventually vanished population, replaced by the ancestors of modern Amerindians. The genetics associated with the Luzia people, in fact, disappear from the continent 9,000 years ago. The difference, according to Strauss, is that its origin was not in Africa, but in North America.
Another surprising discovery of the work concerns the Clovis people, who flourished in the United States about 13,000 years ago and became famous for making chipped stone spearheads. This population was believed to be restricted to North America, but genetic data from Lagoa Santa and two other archaeological sites (Los Rieles in Chile; and Mayahak Cab Pek in Belize) reveal that the people of Clovis also migrated to Central and South America from 12,000 years ago, giving rise to new populations - among them, the Luzia People.
The chipped stone tips apparently lagged behind, as none to date have been found further south than Mexico, but Clovis genetics moved on. This is the great advantage of archeogenetics, according to Strauss: "It allows us to see things that are not invisible to classical archeology," says the researcher. "Evidence that is only visible in genes." Lapa do Santo, archaeological site where were found the skeletons used in the research, in the region of Lagoa Santa (MG). Photo: Mauricio de Paiva
Cell's work has more than 70 authors from various countries, of which 17 are Brazilian. Another paper published today in the journal Science , also by Brazilian authors, also analyzed the DNA of Lagoa Santa skeletons and other archaeological sites in the Americas. The results, for the most part, agree with the results presented at Cell, showing that the continent was populated by a single migratory wave, and that the dispersal and diversification of this population across the continent occurred quite rapidly. In less than 2,000 years, there were people living from northern Canada to southern Chile.
One difference is that, in this case, the researchers found an “genetic sign” of Australian origin (Negroid) in the population of Lagoa Santa, but extremely subtle and in only one of the five skeletons analyzed. Something that, according to them, has nothing to do with the morphology of the Luzia people.
_________________________________________
I had actually showed this skull earlier but didn't realize it
9,000-year-old decapitated skull was unearthed, with a pair of amputated hands
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Another nonsequitor response.
U keep talkin color & while doing it ignore color mutation is one way from dark to light. That's as far you'll try to drag me into your all light Beringian hypothesis. That very dark skinned Indians, like the California ones, derive from lightskin Asians contrary to known human pigment science. Else please inform, any precision welcome.
I'm talking facial features from two skinless skulls. I'm talking associated DNA so-called Paleo vs contemporary.
PaleoIndian AmerIndian genetic dichotomy is false. Both share genomes similar enough to be common.
We're left with geographic populations. We see Ainu/caucasoid looking Ancient One as one type of early North American Indian. Then there's Melanesian/australoid featured Luzia as one of South America's early type of Indians.
Both are from the same breeding population that entered America from Beringia, distinct from CircumPolar peoples who came to the land.
That's what should draw comments. It's red herring to attach color argumentation, singularly, after quoting me. Just shy of strawman illogic.
Without Hapsberg's thread I never woulda pulled the pieces together. Still, something's up with Ainu looks north and Oceanic ones south. Mimics the case of Asia. Why?
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: The Ancient One: genetically ancestral to North American Indians, racial biased phenotype bigots be damned.
Someone previously posted Luzia's skull fossilized completely to stone. If that's a fact, then like that ES member says, Luzia's DNA does not exist.
If Luzia in fact had DNA like other contemporaneous same locale finds then she'd be proof an East Asian genome existed in an Oceanic featured person.
Apparently, so far, PaleoIndian and AmerIndian are biologically the same race geographically from the same place. Colorwise, can lightskin mutate to dark skin? As I have learned it, biological possibility dictates the only change is from dark to light. Please inform. I accept precisions. Fact trumps ego.
Until precised on group skin color development, the original First Americans were complexioned like California Indians. All lighter shades came well after Beringia unless variety already existed then and there.
If the population consisted of marine adapted ethnic cultures they all could've been very dark. The rapid spread from Aleutia to Patagonia entails sea migration. Pacific coastal Americas had extensive kelp forests making quick spread and color retention plausible speculations.
My assumption has been that at least part of the lighter skin found in most Native Americans today was inherited from their common ancestors with Northeast Asians. That's why I haven't been so crazy for the claim that they were still "black" upon moving into the Americas from Beringia. I would be more open to that argument if one could show that the relatively light skin in Natives today evolved separately from what you see in their East Asian relatives.
That said, I wonder what ethnic group this individual (whose photo Baalberith posted) comes from? I know Euronuts like to use suntanning to write off AE depictions of themselves as cocoa or mahogany-skinned, but I wouldn't rule out a suntan in the case of this Native American guy. What do other people in his nation look like?
posted
If you read back my previous two posts, it's mainly what is need to know on this topic.
The Max Plank article did not discuss physical appearance, it was about the DNA being Native America and nor Australasian or African
Caroline Wilkinson made the 2018 digital image based on a man's skull from a nearby different site and 2,500 years younger.
Other articles followed - not journal articles, and from what I see, supposition that the Luzia reconstruction was therefore incorrect and some of them also caption the man from the other site as Luzia. It seems like information being passed and embellished
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I have just discovered that this digital image made by British anthropologist and forensic artist Caroline Wilkinson and shown in many articles with captions saying it is Luzia IS NOT LUZIA !! It is a young man dated 9K (Luzia, a female, is dated 11.5K), 2,500 year difference
Comparison between Richard Neave's 1999 facial reconstruction of Luzia and another skull from Lagoa Santa, now done by Caroline Wilkinson, based on new genetic evidence of the ancestry of the people of Lagoa Santa. 3D modeling by André Strauss / MAE-USP
Genetic data extracted from the DNA of skeletons buried in a cave in Minas Gerais are giving a new face to Brazilian prehistory and, in a way, helping to rewrite 20,000 years of settlement history in the Americas.
The most striking result concerns the so-called Luzia People, who inhabited the Lagoa Santa region near Belo Horizonte between 12,000 and 9,000 years ago, and whose group's name refers to their most illustrious character, Luzia, a A woman in her early twenties whose skull was found by archaeologists in the 1970s - and nearly destroyed in the fire of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro two months ago.
Contrary to something that had been proposed for more than two decades, based mainly on morphological analyzes of Luzia's skull, the new genetic evidence suggests "categorically", According to the researchers, there is no kinship relationship between the Luzia People and ancient populations of Africa or Australia.
"Therefore, the hypothesis that the Luzia people would represent an earlier migratory wave to the ancestors of the current indigenous people is not confirmed," state the Brazilian authors of the study, published today in the journal Cell . “On the contrary, DNA shows that the people of Luzia have totally Amerindian genetics”
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
That famous facial reconstruction of the Luzia skull, conceived in the 1990s, with notably negroid features, is therefore wrong, says researcher André Strauss, from the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo, who has been conducting archaeological excavations for years. Lagoa Santa is one of the study's coordinators.
To replace it, the researchers commissioned a new reconstruction, based on another skull from Lagoa Santa (recorded as Burial 26) and taking into account the new genetic evidence. The result was a face with a much more “generic” morphology, from which “numerous intra-continental variants” would have originated. “It's a kind of tabula rasa, or white canvas, that over the millennia has been shaped in different ways in different populations,” says Strauss.
Archaeological facial reconstructions are based on morphological features of the skull and jaw, but also take into account the individual's assumptions of ancestry - which will influence, for example, features such as lip thickness and nose shape. Thus, the same skull can give rise to completely different faces.
Facial reconstruction of the People of Luzia by Caroline Wilkinson of Liverpool John Moores University in England, based on a retroformed digital skull model of the Lapa do Santo archaeological site. The skull used as a reference is from a young man, cataloged as Burial 26.
Doubt about the origin of the Luzia people arose in the 1990s, when anthropologist Walter Neves of the University of São Paulo described the Luzia skull (hitherto forgotten in the archives of the National Museum) as having a predominantly black and white morphology. 11,500 years old - older than any found in the Americas to date. To explain this, Neves postulated that Luzia and her people were representatives of a migratory wave prior to the one that gave rise to modern Amerindians. This first migration, he said, would have come from the same route as the Bering Strait - that is, also from Asia - but would be made up of individuals who still preserved a Negroid morphology rather than the Mongoloid features that predominate in today's indigenous peoples. It was this hypothesis that guided the facial reconstruction of Luzia by the British Richard Neave in 1999, giving it a more African than Asian appearance. At that time, it was not yet possible to analyze the DNA of human fossils, as is now done with the so-called "archeogenetics". The analyzes, therefore, were based solely on the morphology of the bones and the archaeological information associated with them. Neves was wanted by the report but declined to comment.
According to Strauss, Neves (who was his master's advisor at the USP Bioscience Institute) was right in proposing that the Luzia people represented a differentiated and eventually vanished population, replaced by the ancestors of modern Amerindians. The genetics associated with the Luzia people, in fact, disappear from the continent 9,000 years ago. The difference, according to Strauss, is that its origin was not in Africa, but in North America.
Another surprising discovery of the work concerns the Clovis people, who flourished in the United States about 13,000 years ago and became famous for making chipped stone spearheads. This population was believed to be restricted to North America, but genetic data from Lagoa Santa and two other archaeological sites (Los Rieles in Chile; and Mayahak Cab Pek in Belize) reveal that the people of Clovis also migrated to Central and South America from 12,000 years ago, giving rise to new populations - among them, the Luzia People.
The chipped stone tips apparently lagged behind, as none to date have been found further south than Mexico, but Clovis genetics moved on. This is the great advantage of archeogenetics, according to Strauss: "It allows us to see things that are not invisible to classical archeology," says the researcher. "Evidence that is only visible in genes." Lapa do Santo, archaeological site where were found the skeletons used in the research, in the region of Lagoa Santa (MG). Photo: Mauricio de Paiva
Cell's work has more than 70 authors from various countries, of which 17 are Brazilian. Another paper published today in the journal Science , also by Brazilian authors, also analyzed the DNA of Lagoa Santa skeletons and other archaeological sites in the Americas. The results, for the most part, agree with the results presented at Cell, showing that the continent was populated by a single migratory wave, and that the dispersal and diversification of this population across the continent occurred quite rapidly. In less than 2,000 years, there were people living from northern Canada to southern Chile.
One difference is that, in this case, the researchers found an “genetic sign” of Australian origin (Negroid) in the population of Lagoa Santa, but extremely subtle and in only one of the five skeletons analyzed. Something that, according to them, has nothing to do with the morphology of the Luzia people.
_________________________________________
I had actually showed this skull earlier but didn't realize it
9,000-year-old decapitated skull was unearthed, with a pair of amputated hands
LOL Well this makes perfect sense as the newer reconstruction looks too different as to not be the same person. Even the neurocranial shape which is the most consistent part of the skull looked different.
So this new reconstruction is a man contemporary to Luzia. Got it.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well this makes perfect sense as the newer reconstruction looks too different as to not be the same person. Even the neurocranial shape which is the most consistent part of the skull looked different.
So this new reconstruction is a man contemporary to Luzia. Got it. [/QB]
if you want to call a 2.5k difference contemporary, yes
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Lies and damned lies
Yte bias against negroid features is the root of introducing an imaginary so-called "Luzia people" to replace the actual real Luzia.
It's acceptable because Eurocentrics are yte people and therefore not bad like blk Afreccentrics. So expect no stink as it soothes yte consciousness to have nothing remotely African, like Oceanic features, in early America.
OP referenced article from TV Globo
quote: Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years.
Por César Menezes, TV Globo 08/11/2018 17h50 Atualizado há 8 meses
Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
OP referenced article from TV Globo (Google xlation)
quote: Study contradicts America's settlement theory and suggests Luzia's face was different than previously thought
USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years.
Por César Menezes, TV Globo 08/11/2018 17h50 Atualizado há 8 meses
[caption to video too wide to repost Researchers discover the DNA of the people of Luzia, the oldest human in South America. ]
Researchers at the University of Sao Paulo and Harvard released on Thursday (8) a discovery that contradicts the main theory of settlement of America. With the help of DNA extraction from buried fossils for over ten thousand years, they were able to evaluate the genetic code of the fossils to find out who our ancestors are.
"Until very recently it was practically impossible from a technical point of view to extract DNA from very old bones. Because in the tropical environment we live in there is the degradation of organic matter in general and this also applies to DNA. It is very intense," said André Strauss, Professor at the USP Museum of Archeology and Ethnology.
'New' features of the people of Luzia [caption Simulation shows new features of Luzia - Photo: TV Globo]
The Luzia fossil - the oldest human in South America - was found in the rubble of the National Museum in Rio and had disappeared in the fire that destroyed the museum in early September.
There are two theories for the arrival of humans to the American continents.
The first says that we are descended from East Asian populations that crossed the Bering Strait - at the time, it still connected to North America - and descended to South America.
But in the 1990s, a new theory was created. That the American territories were also populated by even older humans, the first who had already left Africa, crossed Asia, and would have come straight to the Americas, until they reached Brazil.
The idea came about because the researchers studied the measurements of Luzia's skull and found it to be wider than those of the Indians and more similar to those of Africans.
But the result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different.
With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense.
"Genetic data point to the existence of a major migratory wave with possible secondary events involved. But, roughly speaking, the scenario we have today is that 98% of Amerindian ancestry can be traced to a single reaches in America. in other words, the people of Luzia came to America along with all the other populations that came from the Asian continent," said Strauss.
[caption to image Reconstruction of Luzia's face - Photo: TV Globo]
posted
Rede Globo (or simply Globo, is a Brazilian free-to-air television network, launched by media proprietor Roberto Marinho on 26 April 1965. It is owned by media conglomerate Grupo Globo, being by far the largest of its holdings. Globo is the largest commercial TV network in Latin America and the second-largest commercial TV network of the world just behind the American ABC Television Network[6] and the largest producer of telenovelas
Estudo contradiz teoria de povoamento da América e sugere que rosto de Luzia era diferente do que se pensava Pesquisadores da USP e de Harvard extraíram DNA de ossos humanos enterrados por mais de dez mil anos.
César Menezes, El Globo
translation:
Study contradicts settlement theory of America and suggests that Luzia's face was different than previously thought USP and Harvard researchers have extracted DNA from buried human bones for over 10,000 years.
he result of the study showed that Luzia will need a new face. The current one, with a thicker nose and lips, was based on the idea that she was descended from African peoples. But DNA analysis has shown that the genetic code of the people of Lagoa Santa is similar to that of all the indigenous peoples of America, and in this case the features would be different. With this proof, the theory that two populations would have populated the Americas no longer makes sense.
_____________________________
remarks of André Strauss professor at the Museum of Archeology and Ethnology at the University of São Paulo and of of Max Planck Institute in Leipzig one of the authors of the affiliated other article released in Nov 2018 Early human dispersals within the Americas
"However, skull shape isn't a reliable marker of ancestrality or geographic origin. Genetics is the best basis for this type of inference," Strauss explained. "The genetic results of the new study show categorically that there was no significant connection between the Lagoa Santa people and groups from Africa or Australia. So the hypothesis that Luzia's people derived from a migratory wave prior to the ancestors of today's Amerindians has been disproved. On the contrary, the DNA shows that Luzia's people were entirely Amerindian."
at the same time Caroline Wilkinson came out with the digital reconstruction of the young man from a skull found near to The Luiza site.
I'm not sure who the exact origin of the presumptuous idea
"Luzia's face was different than previously thought"
Was it César Menezes, the reporter from Portuguese article El Globo ?
Anyway the story did not seem to have entered much into the English speaking media
The Strauss quotes I have seen seem to reference Lagoa Santa and are not specific to Luzia unless there are more Strauss quotes to that effect
Somewhere along these Brazilian mainstream media outlets may have been thinking " We finally put Luzia to rest, I told you our ancestors weren't negroes" and exaggerated the DNA findings to discredit the '99 reconstruction by Neves
César Menezes, repoter El Globo
what do we know about César Menezes?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic