quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Europeans have no monopoly on white complexions.
When Europeans in their colonial age invented anthropology they never bothered asking input from the colonized ie non-European peoples they colour assigned to anything but white.
None of them are white according to Euro arrogance.
Europeans have claimed exclusive rights to white and enforce it in their academic institutions and all attending imbibe and regurgitate that Eurocentrism (or receive failing grades in anthropology/sociology) but before Euro dominance such was not the case.
quote:why are Asians yellow? When I look at my skin, it doesn’t look yellow to me. If anything, it looks olive and if I’ve been in the sun at all, it’s brown. So if I’m not yellow-skinned, where does that idea come from? ...
Apparently, we can blame a German professor from the 19th century. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752–1840).
In the years since good old Professor Blumenbach, the idea of Asians as yellow has been ingrained in our heads.
East Asian girls of white complexion like to hear it. I personally know Chinese in Indonesian go by "white Chinese." I've never heard any East Asian describe themself as yellow. That's why yellow has no parlance today considered a tad pejorative.
Leaving Euro predicated skin colour wording to Euros of course these females are white. Xyyman posted a scientific colour chart supporting northeast Asians as whiter than Euros.
White ≠ only European, unless one bows down to Simon and acquiesces to play Simon Says. Colour may or may not reveal close genetic or biological relation.
=-=-=-=-=
The referenced book is now available via Internet Archive. Here's a search on white in the pages of this late 1600s Chinese classic.
The book makes no race colour identities but lauds the complexion of desirable women. Make no mistake milk white breasts means what it says.
Most of the European ideas of white skin vs yellow skin go back to the idea that all advances in human history and culture originate in Europe. And all other cultures are therefore below them with skin color being the key indicator of this difference. The other reason for this, which is much more based on reality, is that many East Asians are not pure white and many would be considered brownish just like many native American Populations some of whom are tropically adapted in phenotype. Asia is not a monolithic culture or society and there are variations in phenotype across Asian populations. And that was definitely true when Europeans first arrived there 500 or so years ago.
Coinciding with the arrival of Europeans, you have also had the rise of sinocentrism across much of Asia as China exerted its influence across its borders. Europeans being color obsessed promoted this colorism in their colonial territories but the Chinese also promoted their own version of it as well. And that has played a major part in the way some Asians view themselves and their ideas of beauty, especially now with the resurgence of China as an economic power (aided by Western capital). But much of this modern obsession with skin color and appearance in Asia is based on unrealistic standards. And this is a result of a combination of a distorted idea of what ancient Chinese considered beautiful (often white skin was the result of white cosmetic face paint), but also cosmetic surgery. It is no coincidence that places like South Korea lead the way in cosmetic surgery to remove eyefolds and this trend has also taken off in China. So the net effect of all of this is that modern Asians no longer really want to look Asian and want to look like fictional imaginary characters than actual Chinese and Asians. Keep in mind that this cosmetic surgery allegedly originated with American army doctors in South Korea but now has spread across Asia as many try and make their lips thinner, eyes rounder, cheeks higher and noses thinner to appeal to an imaginary Asian ideal. That is why there is a big difference between the way Asian actors looked in Hong Kong movies in the 70s and the way they look today.
As you see in the old photos here the "white" complexion of women was often enhanced with face paint. This was common across East Asia and even South East Asia, but the difference was the South East Asians were wearing cosmetic masks to enhance the skin not change the color. This is similar to what you see in parts of Africa as well. Because in reality no human is truly "white" with no color as that is almost impossible. https://en.cookingwiththehamster.com/korea-beauty-and-fashion-evolution-1Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here and there counter movements to the white obsession are emerging. One such movement is MagandangMorenx in the Philippines. The future will show what impact such initiatives can have.
quote: #MagandangMorenx, literally translated to “beautiful brown skin”, is a movement dedicated to challenging the traditionally enforced beauty standards within mainstream Filipino media and combating colorism within the culture. From whitening creams to an entertainment industry saturated with mestizas, the legacy of the 333 Spanish colonization of the Philippines can still be felt in this worship and desire for white skin.
Tan and brown-skinned Filipinos are made to feel insecure, ashamed, and embarrassed of the natural color of their skin despite being indigenous to a cluster of tropical islands in the southeast Pacific, where the geography and climate make brown skin the norm.
#MagandangMorenx was created in 2016 to empower, reclaim, & redefine what it means to be a Filipino & celebrate our diversity of color.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
quote:Doug M posted:
... the "white" complexion of women was often enhanced with face paint.
. Very true as whiteness was seen as a beauty plus. I'm sure even the women in Shih-cheng's works with naturally milk-white breasts or white legs or white buttocks applied white cosmetic to their faces making them an unnatural powdery white.
Shih-cheng's books apply yellow complexion to death or illness. Being complexion descriptors, not racial designations, neither of the colors white nor yellow appear within quotation marks in the literature.
One example
quote: it was a beautiful and seductive woman. Behold, she has: Glossy, black, raven’s feather tresses; Dark, curved, new moon eyebrows; Clear, cold, almond eyes; Redolently fragrant cherry lips; A straight, full, alabaster nose; Thickly powdered red cheeks; A handsome, silver salver face; A light, lissome, flowerlike figure; Slender, jade-white, scallion-shoot fingers; A cuddlesome, willow waist; A tender, pouting, dough-white tummy; Tiny, turned-up, pointed feet; Buxom breasts; and Fresh, white legs.
.
I hope I clarified use of body skin color in Chinese lit of the same century as Shakespeare. And to expand further I offer this face complexion chart from
EDIT: [ Note Lucy Liu's Asian complexion reps the European midrange. Darker than Emma Stone, lighter than Sandra Bullock. ]
Then of course the ES archive has/had quite a few threads on the non-northeast or Jungle Asians as Ali Wong puts it. They are/were chock full of research and imgs posted by Doug M.
Japan, Korea, and northeast China span the same latitude as France and Spain. The lands with Asian blacks is the same latitude as Sahel and Sahra Africa. Intesting are those Tibetans and Mongolians with brown/grey-brown skin. But then like the blue/purple black skinned Andamanese I think all three peoples males are nry D (split from DE).
Will dig up an independent Pacific Asian authored genetics article and post here later maybe.
... the "white" complexion of women was often enhanced with face paint.
. Very true as whiteness was seen as a beauty plus. I'm sure even the women in Shih-cheng's works with naturally milk-white breasts or white legs or white buttocks applied white cosmetic to their faces making them an unnatural powdery white.
Shih-cheng's books apply yellow complexion to death or illness. Being complexion descriptors, not racial designations, neither of the colors white nor yellow appear within quotation marks in the literature.
I hope I clarified use of body skin color in Chinese lit of the same century as Shakespeare. And to expand further I offer this face complexion chart from
In relation to the topic of the first Americans and Asian diversity and historical concepts of East Asian phenotypes, ancient Chinese art is idealized. Women in real life often wore white face makeup, but in the portraits this was not often depicted and just shown as being naturally very white skin. However the reality was far from the idealized vision as shown in the historic portraits of the Qing Dynasty. It is just there was no cosmetic surgery in that era to allow them to remove the features that weren't desirable. And this variation from that "white" ideal is what often was identified by Europeans as "yellow" (big lips, noses, epicanthic folds, variations skin complexions, etc). Because the truth is there is no single historical east Asian look. And I know one thing for sure that in various eras this modern fad of being super skinny would be considered sickly and weak.
And such categorizations and ideologies were then extended into the typologies created by these racial categorizations of Native Americans as Red skinned. When in reality Native Americans And Asians have similar variations in features from Northern cold Adapted features to Southern tropical adapted features.....
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The migration history of haplogroup D-M174 is most mysterious. By now, we have known little about the origin and dispersal of this haplogroup. This haplo- group was derived from African haplogroup DE-M1 (YAP insertion) and is associated with a short black Asian physical style. Haplogroups E and D are brother haplogroups. While haplogroup E was carried westwards to Africa by the tall black people, haplogroup D might have been carried eastwards to East Asia by the short black people (Figure 3). Haplogroup D-M174 has high frequencies in the Andaman Negritos, the northern Tibeto-Burman populations and the Ainu of Japan, and also appears at low frequencies in other East and Southeast Asian and Central Asian populations. [...] The paragroup D* is restricted to the Andaman Islands, which has been isolated for at least 20 thousand years. Some other minor haplogroups, also included in D*, can be found around Tibet. Most of the populations with haplogroup D have very dark skin color, including the Andamanese, some of the Tibeto-Burman and Mon-Khmer people. The Ainu people may have developed pale skin to absorb more ultraviolet light in high latitude regions.
posted
There are quite a few recent papers about "Population Y" in the Americas and how they have no known descendants among modern Native Americans. That definitely poses an odd scenario but regardless doesn't change the facts of the diversity of Native American populations throughout history.....
quote: In less than a decade, analyses of ancient genomes have transformed our understanding of the Indigenous peopling and population history of the Americas. These studies have shown that this history, which began in the late Pleistocene epoch and continued episodically into the Holocene epoch, was far more complex than previously thought. It is now evident that the initial dispersal involved the movement from northeast Asia of distinct and previously unknown populations, including some for whom there are no currently known descendants. The first peoples, once south of the continental ice sheets, spread widely, expanded rapidly and branched into multiple populations. Their descendants—over the next fifteen millennia—experienced varying degrees of isolation, admixture, continuity and replacement, and their genomes help to illuminate the relationships among major subgroups of Native American populations. Notably, all ancient individuals in the Americas, save for later-arriving Arctic peoples, are more closely related to contemporary Indigenous American individuals than to any other population elsewhere, which challenges the claim—which is based on anatomical evidence—that there was an early, non-Native American population in the Americas. Here we review the patterns revealed by ancient genomics that help to shed light on the past peoples who created the archaeological landscape, and together lead to deeper insights into the population and cultural history of the Americas.
But as usual there are other papers that contradict that story.
quote: In 2015, scientists discovered something surprising: that some Indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon were distantly—but distinctly—related to native Australians and Melanesians. The genetic signal of Australasian ancestry in so far-flung a population sent researchers scrambling for answers. A new study reveals this genetic signal is more prevalent throughout South America than thought and suggests the people who first carried these genes into the New World got it from an ancestral Siberian population.
The finding also sheds light on those people's migration routes to South America. "It's a really nice piece of work," says Jennifer Raff, an anthropological geneticist at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, who wasn't involved in the study. It shows that the 2015 finding "wasn't just an artifact. It really is a widespread genetic signal."
Anthropologists think bands of hardy hunter-gatherers left Siberia and entered the now-submerged land of Beringia, which then connected Eurasia and Alaska, when sea levels were much lower than today—perhaps about 20,000 years ago. Then, about 15,000 years or so ago, some departed Beringia and fanned out into North and South America. These early migrants made good time: By 14,800 years ago at the latest, radiocarbon dates suggest they were setting up camp in Monte Verde in southern Chile.
The 2015 DNA studies revealed Australasian ancestry in two Indigenous Amazonian groups, the Karitiana and Suruí, based on the DNA of more than 200 living and ancient people. Many bore a signature set of genetic mutations, named the "Y signal" after the Brazilian Tupi word for "ancestor," ypikuéra. Some scientists speculated the Y signal was already present in some of the earliest South American migrants. Others suggested a later migration of people related to present-day Australasians could have introduced the Y signal into people already living in the Amazon.
And again much of this goes back to how those ancient groups of East Asians were related to the first aboriginal settlers of Asia, which again is not exactly the same as modern Australian Aborigines.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
East Asians and American Indians have rejected being identified as a color and you will never hear Asians on the news referred to on the news as yellows or American Indians as red skins although you can find such references in earlier periods
this is not do say in historical writing skin color is never referenced "white skin" etc
but when it's decided to adopted terms like "White people" and "Black people" the word "skin" is left out and the word takes on connotations beyond skin
In that form they become primary identifiers and recorded on the census of certain countries
African Americans have largely rejected the term African Americans and instead have said to European Americans who had adopted "White" in effect, yes we accept your color system, we will be Black as you are White but realize now we are forced to compete with you and we will
This may go on forever
Or it could be a stage "Black" is to an extent a reaction to "White" but as such is an acceptance of the paradigm color
but what if instead "White" and "Black" were done away with? One day it could happen
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The main reason I like ADMIXTURE itself, compared to the rest of that package is, it's straight forward.
It's based on a broad swathe of DNA, far more than 2 bi-parentals or the up to 21 STaRs of autosomes.
You can interpret a worldwide sample set by noting K2 run as the Continental and Out of Africa divisions (roughly) K3 run as the old tri-racial model to some extent K5 run as the updated 5 race model K7 run as the 7 continental regions
Higher K runs then show regional or 'ethno-linguistic' substructure.
I've been on an ADMIXTURE trail of Americans. Those we call Indians aren't the only Americans nor do Indians claim shared origins with those others. My interest is Indians ancestries and percentages in various peoples.
For me that helps see American ancestries start/spread throughout both continents and Meso-America. Here, have a sneak peek at my Nakatsuka 2020's SF2 aDNA only redux. Unlike any before, this one is sorted strictly by time. Three major southern continent lineages go back to the early Holocene 12,000 years ago, and are all over that continent.
click to zoom
IBS shows insignificant (≤3%) Indian admixture. This supports history saying Indios in miniscule numbers were sent to Spain since Colon's mission.
Moreno-Mayar 2018 (Willerslev Labs) F2 K=16
Wait, does Willerslev Labs S17 show African ancestry in Americans or am I colorblind!
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: We need more ancient DNA from the oldest samples of Native Americans to know what skin color, what kind of hair and similar they had. What we know so far is that there could be a certain morphological variation among the earliest skeletons that are found. Thus in Mexico we find skeletons that remind some of Europeans, arctic natives and of todays Native Americans. In Brazil the Lagoa Santa people had skull forms that had some resemblance to Australians, but also of peoples which still live in todays Brazil. Those ancient remains which have been DNA tested are all nested within past and present Native American genetic diversity.
Among the oldest DNA tested individuals so far is Naia from Mexico (12000 years), the Spirit Cave mummy (more than 10000 years old) from Nevada in USA and some of the Lagoa Santa individuals (about 10 to 11000 years old) from Brazil. We also have around 13000 years old eDNA from Paisley caves in Oregon. All these samples yielded DNA that still exist among Native Americans.
So despite a certain variation in looks they were all more related to todays Native Americans than to any other peoples in the world.
For the oldest traces of humans in the Americas, like the White Sands footprints New Mexico which are dated to between 21000-23000 years old, we still have no DNA.
The oldest skeleton so far is Eve of Naharon in Mexico which is dated to about 13600 years old. Her DNA has not been sequenced.
Reconstruction of the famous Luzia, from Lagoa Santa in Brazil, compared with a woman from the Yanomami people from Brazil.
Interesting diversity among early skulls found in Mexico
Yep, all of this was covered before in other threads.
From Neves & Hubbe's 2005 study of Lagoa Santa skulls Abstract 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; prognathic, 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 South American 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.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Here and there counter movements to the white obsession are emerging. One such movement is MagandangMorenx in the Philippines. The future will show what impact such initiatives can have.
quote: #MagandangMorenx, literally translated to “beautiful brown skin”, is a movement dedicated to challenging the traditionally enforced beauty standards within mainstream Filipino media and combating colorism within the culture. From whitening creams to an entertainment industry saturated with mestizas, the legacy of the 333 Spanish colonization of the Philippines can still be felt in this worship and desire for white skin.
Tan and brown-skinned Filipinos are made to feel insecure, ashamed, and embarrassed of the natural color of their skin despite being indigenous to a cluster of tropical islands in the southeast Pacific, where the geography and climate make brown skin the norm.
#MagandangMorenx was created in 2016 to empower, reclaim, & redefine what it means to be a Filipino & celebrate our diversity of color.
Yeah, I've heard of this. I think a lot of this fair skin obsession has to do with Western colonialism and the favoring of the elite 'mestiza' look. You'd be surprised at how many skin lightening centers they have in the Philippines as well as the number of ads for skin lightening. I remember years ago when I visited, I was shocked to see a commercial where a couple was disappointed and upset that that the wife in the hospital after giving birth realized their newborn was dark-skinned! WTF
So I really hope this countermovement is here to stay. Though what's with the x in Morenx?? That sounds an awful lot like that Latinx nonsense we have here in America.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26349 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: We need more ancient DNA from the oldest samples of Native Americans to know what skin color, what kind of hair and similar they had. What we know so far is that there could be a certain morphological variation among the earliest skeletons that are found. Thus in Mexico we find skeletons that remind some of Europeans, arctic natives and of todays Native Americans. In Brazil the Lagoa Santa people had skull forms that had some resemblance to Australians, but also of peoples which still live in todays Brazil. Those ancient remains which have been DNA tested are all nested within past and present Native American genetic diversity.
Among the oldest DNA tested individuals so far is Naia from Mexico (12000 years), the Spirit Cave mummy (more than 10000 years old) from Nevada in USA and some of the Lagoa Santa individuals (about 10 to 11000 years old) from Brazil. We also have around 13000 years old eDNA from Paisley caves in Oregon. All these samples yielded DNA that still exist among Native Americans.
So despite a certain variation in looks they were all more related to todays Native Americans than to any other peoples in the world.
For the oldest traces of humans in the Americas, like the White Sands footprints New Mexico which are dated to between 21000-23000 years old, we still have no DNA.
The oldest skeleton so far is Eve of Naharon in Mexico which is dated to about 13600 years old. Her DNA has not been sequenced.
Reconstruction of the famous Luzia, from Lagoa Santa in Brazil, compared with a woman from the Yanomami people from Brazil.
Interesting diversity among early skulls found in Mexico
Yep, all of this was covered before in other threads.
From Neves & Hubbe's 2005 study of Lagoa Santa skulls Abstract 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; prognathic, 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 South American 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.
Anyone know if the Population Y signal has been found in the ancestry of these "Australoid"-looking Native samples? I recall the claim that people like Luzia would have been "genetically Amerindian" despite their different morphology.
posted
Seems that the DNA data from those Lagoa Santa remains that have been sequenced still show that they were as they put it "entirely nested within past and present Native American genetic diversity". Even Neves himself are now writing about it
So it seems that the Lagoa Santa after all is more related with todays Native Americans than with any other people (including Australians/Melanesians). It seems that morphology and DNA are not always fully compatible. So far all ancient DNA still points to a common heritage between different Native groups even if the morphology can be rather shifting.
It seems that it was maybe a rather heterogenos people (morphologically) that immigrated to the new continent(s).
quote:Study by 72 researchers from eight countries concludes that the Lagoa Santa people are descendants of Clovis culture migrants from North America. Distinctly Adrican features attributed to Luzia were wrong (Images André Strauss and Caroline Wilkinsson)
About the Y-signal it seems that the introgression of that signal can have happened already in Asia and some of those who came to America brought that signal, mixed with other people. It seems they still trying to find suitable models to explain it.
One must also take into consideration that Luzia and her people are not the oldest human remains in the Americas, both Eve of Naharon and Naia are older. Also Anzick-1 is older.
Best preserved of the most ancient remains was the Spirit cave mummy. It was so well preserved that one could see that he for example had straight hair. According what I read he also had a skin tone in line with many Native Americans of today.
Something about the DNA among Luzias people (Luzia herself is not sequenced).
quote: Lagoa Santa remains from a site nearby to the Luzia remains carry DNA regarded as Native American. Two of the Lagoa Santa individuals carry the same mtDNA haplogroup (D4h3a) also carried by older 12,000+ remains Anzick-1 found in Montana, mtDNA haplogroup A2, B2, C1d1 and three of the Lagoa Santa individuals harbor the same Y chromosome haplogroup Q1b1a1a1-M848 as found in the Spirit Cave genome of Nevada
posted
Note, no DNA was obtainable from the 11,500-year-old Luzia woman skull, only Lagoa Santa remains from a site nearby, remains dated 10,000-9,000 years ago 1,500+ year difference
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if there were any earlier Australoid / Melanesian population in the Americas before the old relatives of todays Native Americans, it is still to be found.
For example we have no DNA, or other human remains of the people who put their footprints at the beaches of a lake at White Sands in New Mexico c 21000 - 23000 years ago. Maybe we will find their remains one day.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Note, no DNA was obtainable from the 11,500-year-old Luzia woman skull, only Lagoa Santa remains from a site nearby, remains dated 10,000-9,000 years ago 1,500+ year difference
Yes we have no DNA from Luzia herself. And since her remains were rather burnt in a museum fire we will unfortunately not get any either.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that Spirit cave and Acha man are the only of these where we have phenotypical data beyond the skeleton. For Spirit cave we have the mummy itself with preserved hair, and phenotypical data (hair color, eye color and skin tone) from DNA, which were in line with now living Native Americans. Acha man also have some preserved skin and hair.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of this confusion about population Y and other native American populations is weird. Why would anyone assume that native Americans are not descended from ancient migrants from Asia over 10 or 20 thousand years ago and why is there a need to distinguish between "paleo" and more recent native Americans. It really doesn't make sense if you think about it and likely reflects over emphasizing conclusions based on limited data. Native Americans were always diverse and never a monolithic population to begin with.
Look at the title below:
quote: This article is more than 3 years old Scientists reveal 10,000-year-old mummy is Native American ancestor
(like why should anyone be shocked by that?)
quote: DNA painstakingly extracted from the ancient skull proved the skeleton was an ancestor of the tribe and discredited a longstanding theory that the individual was from a group of “Paleoamericans” that existed in North America before Native Americans.
The full genetic details of the skeleton, which is the world’s oldest natural mummy, are published as part of a wide-ranging international study of the ancestry of North and South America. The project also found evidence of two previously unknown migrations into South America and revealed surprising traces of Australasian ancestry in indigenous South Americans that hint at a far earlier arrival of modern humans to the Americas – potentially dating back 30,000 years or more.
Prof Eske Willerslev, who led the sequencing of the Spirit Cave Mummy and helped interpret genetic data from dozens of ancient specimens spanning about 10,000 years and locations from Alaska to Patagonia, said the findings highlighted the “power of ancient DNA” to reveal untold stories of the distant past.
It just sounds like either these news sites are out of their minds in reporting the story or these scientists are really confusing the history. Like why would paleoamericans not be "native Americans"? And if you have evidence of a 30,000 presence of humans in North America doesn't that prove the existence of "paleo"Americans? Weird. It sounds more like the result of the data overturning old 'racial' models of American history than anything else. Because technically PaleoAmericans refers to native Amerian skulls with Australasian and Africoid features.
quote: South America was the last major continent to be colonized by modern humans (1, 2), yet it has unusually high among-population cranial differentiation relative to other global continents (3–9). This seems counterintuitive, given that within-group neutral genetic and craniometric diversity decreases with distance from sub-Saharan Africa, due to serial founder effects as humans dispersed out of Africa (10–13). However, populations can exhibit low within-group variation yet still show high between-group differentiation due to population isolation (reduced gene flow) and pervasive genetic drift, which is likely to be the case in South America (4). High levels of among-population differentiation in the Americas have also been noted for linguistic (14) and neutral genetic data (15). Whereas a concordant larger-than-expected cranial diversity is observable among late Holocene “Amerindian” populations (6, 8, 16), among-group differentiation is further exaggerated by the distinct cranial morphology of early “Paleoamerican” crania compared to the morphology of contemporary Native Americans (17–24), which has generated a long-standing debate about the origin of morphological diversity in the continent (17, 19, 20, 25).
Debates regarding the cause of this high between-group differentiation have centered on two main competing hypotheses. One possibility is that the observed diversity in South America is the result of in situ processes during the Holocene, whereby high within-group variation among early Americans became subdivided among descendent populations due to the rapid colonization of the Americas and/or as a result of genetic drift or natural selection acting in small isolated populations (5, 8, 25–27). Variants of this model emphasize the importance of recurrent gene flow between Asia and the Americas following the initial colonization of the continent (17). However, whereas among-group cranial differentiation in South America is extraordinarily high, within-group variation for early Paleoamerican samples is not excessive and is within the range expressed by contemporary global populations (4). This finding argues against the notion that the earliest migrants into the Americas were the source of all subsequent among-group biological diversity. The other main hypothesis proposed is that the observed cranial diversity is the result of multiple waves of dispersion into the Americas from northeast Asia over the course of several thousand years, with each wave of migrants introducing new sources of biological diversity. This argument is largely based on the empirical observation that the average cranial shape of the earliest South Americans bears stronger affinities with Australasian and Polynesian populations than it does with East Asian or later Native American groups (20, 24, 26). Recently, Hubbe et al. (18) suggested that early Paleoamerican groups retain the generalized ancestral morphology that characterized late Pleistocene Eurasian populations, as represented by fossils such as the Upper Cave specimen from Zhoukoudian (China) and Upper Paleolithic European specimens. If this ancestral morphology is also shared with contemporary Oceanic populations, then this would explain the apparent connection between Australasia and South America, despite their large geographic separation. Under such a scenario, subsequent population differentiation occurred in Asia following the initial settlement of the Americas, with later migrants into the New World resembling the derived “East Asian” morphology more closely.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] A lot of this confusion about population Y and other native American populations is weird. Why would anyone assume that native Americans are not descended from ancient migrants from Asia over 10 or 20 thousand years ago and why is there a need to distinguish between "paleo" and more recent native Americans. It really doesn't make sense if you think about it and likely reflects over emphasizing conclusions based on limited data. Native Americans were always diverse and never a monolithic population to begin with.
Anthropologists variously described Luzia's features as resembling those of Indigenous Australians, Melanesians and the Negritos of Southeast Asia. Walter Neves, an anthropologist at the University of São Paulo, suggested that Luzia's features most strongly resembled those of Australian Aboriginal peoples.
posted
Seems that the Lagoa Santa people have a somewhat different cranial morphology than many other groups, but still their DNA are most like these other groups. On top of that we have in Mexico skulls that are a bit like Europeans and others like Arctic natives. Still not many today will declare that the oldest Native Americans were Europeans (except maybe some proponents of the Solutrean hypothesis).
So until we actually find remains who are both genetically and morphologically Australian (or from other outer sources) we can not say that such a population preceded all others. We have just no traces of a genetically very distinct or deviating group who should be more related to for example Australians than to other Native American groups, either ancient or modern.
Researchers have proposed that the Y-population mixed with other ancestors of Native Americans already in Asia, so some of those who went to America were already a mixed group. Exactly when they arrived in relation to other groups are not fully known yet. We need more ancient genomes.
A population mixture already in Asia seems plausible if one thinks about the variation of different peoples in Asia that have moved around and met each other during many millennia.
Interesting is also that one has found a 45 000 years old population in a cave in Bulgaria which share a genetic link to both East Asians and Native Americas. So Asia seems to be a hotbed for diverse ancient groups mixing and mingling.
So until we actually find ancient remains which both morphologically and genetically are Melanesians or Australoids (or any other population outside the Americas) it is hard to propose that such a population should have preceded all other groups in the Americas. There are simply no evidence that such group existed in America before anyone else.
Craniometry can be unreliable sometimes which has been shown before, as for example in Wiercinskis´ studies of Mesoamerican skulls, which in the end turned out to be flawed.
So far we have not found one single human remain in the Americas that are more genetically related to any none American group than with other Native American groups. And that also goes for those Lagoa Santa samples that have been genetically sequenced.
Sometimes I get the impression that some people only are interested in ancient Native American peoples or cultures if they believe they were "black" (or in some cases "white"). Non black Native Americans seem not to count.
It seems more of a racial or political agenda than sincere scientific curiosity.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Sometimes I get the impression that some people only are interested in ancient Native American peoples or cultures if they believe they were "black" (or in some cases "white"). Non black Native Americans seem not to count.
If you're going to accuse people here of having an ulterior motive, maybe consider that you could be the one uncomfortable with the idea of a Population Y (whatever they looked like) entering the Americas before modern Natives? I mean, the reason we even know of a Population Y is due to shared ancestry between certain South American Natives share a certain signal of ancestry with Australasians. It's not like anyone is proposing modern Natives violently exterminated the Pop. Y people Manifest Destiny style without any peaceful admixture whatsoever. Peaceful absorption would be more likely IMO.
posted
I do not accuse anyone specific, but I seen both here on Egyptsearch and other places online a lot of claims of Native Americans being black, or African or Australian or anything else than what they actually are. It is not only curiosity it is a political campaign going on all over social media.
I have no problem with the thought of a population Y entering Americas first except there are no evidence of that. The oldest skulls in the Americas are not Australoid, the oldest DNA is not Australoid. Not one example of any unmixed ancient Australian or Melanesian has ever been found in the Americas. The amount of the Y-population in most groups who have such heritage are rather low, a couple of percent.
Australians have a higher percent Denisova ancestry than Native Americans have Australian / Melanesian ancestry. Still few would propose that Australia was inhabited by Denisovans before modern humans arrived there. Most believe such an introgression took place somewhere in the Asiatic mainland.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not propose that we shall hide research results, but it is also dangerous to exaggerate them. Such trends, especially concerning race, is quickly picked up by laymen, even artists and politicians, seeing some opportunity to displace Native Americans under the pretext that they were not here first. Already there have been songs written about blacks being first in the Americas, threats have been directed to "Siberian Invaders", "Filipino slaves" and so on. For Native Americans all this have become a nuisance, always being questioned as the first inhabitants of the Americas.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yep, all of this was covered before in other threads.
From Neves & Hubbe's 2005 study of Lagoa Santa skulls Abstract 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; prognathic, 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 South American 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.
quote:In agreement with previous results, we found that the Amazonian Suruí share a larger proportion of alleles with Australasian groups (represented by Papuans, Australians, and Andaman Islanders) than do the Mixe. Lagoa Santa yielded results similar to those obtained for the Suruí: The analyzed Lagoa Santa genome also shares a larger proportion of alleles with Australasian groups, but not with other Eurasians, than do Mesoamerican groups (the Mixe and Huichol). However, the Australasian signal is not present in the Spirit Cave individual, and we include this distinction in the admixture graph modeling.
I can send you the .PDF if you'd like, DJ.
It is curious that the signal seems to be prominent only in the genomes of South American Natives, especially those east of the Andes. What could explain that?
posted
^ Again proving how morphology can be misleading as you showed in your evolutionary tree thread here.
And yes, Brandon I would very much appreciate that pdf.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: It is curious that the signal seems to be prominent only in the genomes of South American Natives, especially those east of the Andes. What could explain that?
Perhaps the Andes acted as somewhat of a barrier which did not stop but at least impended the complete genomic replacement of the Paleoindians.
It's perhaps similar to how the most common Y lineage in Australian Aborigines (C4-M347) is found only in Australia and nowhere else not even Papua New Guinea. Certain regions served as refugia for certain populations. Another example would be EEF genomes in isolated islands in Britain like the Orkney Islands.
Posts: 26349 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
References edited for non-technical readers. See them @ www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674 (18) 31380-1 [copy to URL window and remove the spaces]
Cosimo Posth, Nathan Nakatsuka, Iosif Lazaridis, Johannes Krause, David Reich, et al (2018) Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America
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
Long-Standing Population Continuity in Multiple Regions of South America
The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people. For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Core individuals.
In Belize, individuals from Mayahak Cab Pek and Saki Tzul dating to ∼9,300 and ∼7,400 BP do not share significantly more alleles with present-day people from the region near Belize than they do with present-day groups elsewhere in Central and South America.
In Brazil, genetic data from sites dating to ∼9,600 BP (Lapa do Santo) and ∼6,700 BP (Laranjal) show no distinctive shared ancestry with present-day Brazilians (Figures 2 and S1; Table S1), although the Laranjal individuals do show potential evidence of shared ancestry with a ∼5,800 BP individual from Moraes (Table S4), confirmed by the statistic f4(Mbuti, Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP; Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Brazil_Moraes_5800BP), which is Z = 7.7 standard errors from zero.
We detect long-standing continuity between ancient and present-day Native Americans in each of the regions of South America we analyzed beginning at least ∼5,800 BP, a pattern that is evident in heatmaps, neighbor-joining trees, and multi-dimensional scaling plots computed on outgroup-f3 statistics (Figures 2, S1, and S2; Table S1).
In Peru, the most ancient individuals dating up to ∼9,000 BP from Cuncaicha and Lauricocha share alleles at the highest rate with present-day indigenous groups living in the Central Andes (Lindo et al., 2018, Llamas et al., 2016).
Individuals dating up to ∼8,600 BP from Arroyo Seco 2 and Laguna Chica also show the strongest allele sharing with some present-day indigenous people in the Southern Core.
In Brazil, the evidence of continuity with present-day indigenous people begins with the Moraes individual at ∼5,800 BP. A striking pattern of continuity with present-day people is also observed in the ∼2,000 BP Jabuticabeira 2 individuals who were part of the Sambaqui shell-mound building tradition that was spread along the south Brazilian coast from around 8,000–1,000 BP. The Jabuticabeira 2 individuals share significantly more alleles with some Ge-speaking groups than they do with some Tupi-Guarani speaking groups who have been predominant on the coast during the post-Colonial period (Figure S3; Table S1). This supports the theory of shared ancestry between the makers of the Sambaqui culture and the speakers of proto-Ge who are hypothesized to have lived in the region ∼2,000 BP (Iriarte et al., 2017). These findings also support the theory of coastal replacement of Ge speakers by Tupi-Guarani speakers after ∼1,000 BP (Hubbe et al., 2009) (STAR Methods).
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Evidence for at Least Four Genetic Exchanges between South America and Other Regions
Figure 1 plots the excess rate of allele sharing of ancient Central and South Americans with the ∼12,800 BP Anzick-1 individual from Montana compared to the ∼11,500 BP USR1 individual from Alaska, an Ancient Beringian who derives from a lineage that split from the one leading to all other known Native Americans before they separated from each other (Moreno-Mayar et al., 2018a) (Table S4).
The distribution of this statistic f4(Mbuti, Test; USR1, Anzick-1) confirms previous findings that Anzick-1 relatedness is greatest in Central and South Americans and lowest in North American groups (Table S4) (Rasmussen et al., 2014), with the exception of the California Channel Islands, where the earliest individuals from San Nicolas Island around 4,900 BP show some of the highest Anzick-1 relatedness, consistent with an early spread of Anzick-1-related people to these islands followed by local isolation (Scheib et al., 2018) (Figure S2D).
More careful examination reveals significant ancestry variability in the ancient South Americans. The ∼10,900 BP Los Rieles individual from Chile, the ∼9,600 BP individuals from Lapa do Santo in Brazil, and individuals from southern Peru and northern Chile dating to ∼4,200 BP and later (“Late Central Andes” from Cuncaicha, Laramate and Pica Ocho), share more alleles with Anzick-1 than do other South Americans.
Many of these signals of asymmetrical relationship to Anzick-1 are significant as assessed by statistics of the form f4(Mbuti, Anzick-1; Test1, Test2): Z score for deviation from zero as high as 3.4 for the (Test1, Test2) pair (Early Andes, Chile_LosRieles_10900BP), 3.1 for the pair (Early Andes, Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP), and 3.0 for the pair (Early Andes, Late Central Andes) (Table S2).
We confirmed these findings using qpWave, which evaluates the minimum number of sources of ancestry that must have contributed to a test set of groups relative to a set of outgroups. We tested all possible pairs of populations and found that none of the three combinations are consistent with being derived from a homogeneous ancestral population: p = 0.0023 for (Early Andes, Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP), p = 0.0007 for (Early Andes, Late Central Andes), and p = 0.0000004 for (Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Late Central Andes).
We obtained qualitatively similar results replacing Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP with Chile_LosRieles_10900BP. We also obtained similar results for subsets of individuals in each group. Our power to reject models of just two sources of ancestry for the ancient South American individuals depends critically on the use of Anzick-1 as an outgroup, as when we remove this individual from the outgroup set there is no evidence of a third source of ancestry contributing to Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP (p = 0.11) or Chile_LosRieles_10900BP (p = 0.35). It also depends critically on the use of California Channel Islands individuals, as when we remove them as outgroups there is no evidence for a third source of ancestry contributing to Late Central Andes groups (p = 0.12).
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Modeling the Deep History of Central and South America
[ . . . ]
To fit the Anzick-1 genome associated with the Clovis culture into the admixture graph, we needed to specify additional admixture events. We identified a range of fits for the data. Figure 4 shows the result of manually exploring models guided by common sense principles (geography, time, and archaeology) as well as the genetic data. Figure 5 shows a model obtained by a semi-automated procedure constrained only by the fit to the genetic data.
We highlight four points of agreement between the two admixture graphs. First, both graphs imply a minimum of four genetic exchanges between South America and regions outside South America consistent with the qpWave results in the previous section. This includes: (1) a primary source of ANC-A ancestry in all South Americans; (2) an ANC-A lineage with distinct affinity to Anzick-1 in Chile_LosRieles_10900BP, Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, and some early Southern Cone populations; and (3) ANC-A ancestry with a distinctive affinity to ancient individuals from the California Channel Islands (USA_SanNicolas_4900BP) present in the Central Andes by ∼4,200 BP. (4) The final spread of ancestry contributes to present-day Amazonian groups like the Surui. In Figures 4 and 5, we do not include the Surui but do show such models in Figures S5G–S5I where Surui can only be fit by proposing some ancestry differently related to Eurasians than is the case for other Native Americans (as expected if there is Population Y ancestry in the Surui).
Second, both graphs specify minimal ANC-B ancestry in South Americans. While we do find significant allele sharing with a representative ANC-B population (Canada_Lucier_4800BP-500BP) in people from the Central Andes after ∼4,200 years ago—as reflected in significantly positive (2 < Z < 4) statistics of the form f4(Mbuti, Canada_Lucier_4800BP-500BP; Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP or Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP, Late Central Andes or present-day Aymara and Quechua from Peru) —when we fit admixture graph models specifying an ANC-B contribution to Late Central Andes groups, the ANC-B proportion is never more than 2% (Figures S5D–S5F).
Third, both graphs infer little genetic drift separating the lineages leading to the different ancient groups in each major region of South America. This can be seen in our inferred five-way split whose order we cannot resolve involving lineages leading to: (1) the early Belizeans, (2) early Peruvians, (3) early Southern Cone populations, (4) the main lineage leading to Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, and (5) the lineage leading to Chile_LosRieles_10900BP (Figure S5A). This suggests rapid human radiation of the main lineage ancestral to later South Americans (Raghavan et al., 2015, Reich et al., 2012).
Fourth, both graphs agree that there is distinctive shared ancestry between the Clovis culture associated Anzick-1 and the earliest South American individuals from Lapa do Santo in Brazil and Los Rieles in Chile.
We also detect evidence of ancestry related to Anzick-1 in the oldest Central American genome, as the most ancient individual from Belize has evidence of more Anzick-1 relatedness than later Belize individuals as reflected in the weakly significant statistic f4(Mbuti, Anzick-1; Belize_SakiTzul_7400BP, Belize_MayahakCabPek_9300BP) (Z = 2.1).
Taken together, these results support the hypothesis that an expansion of a group associated with the Clovis culture left an impact far beyond the geographic region in which this culture was spread.
At the same time, both classes of models provide evidence against a stronger version of this hypothesis, which is that an expansion of a homogeneous population associated with the Clovis culture was the primary source of the ancestry of later Central and South Americans.
Specifically, both models find that the overwhelming majority of the ancestry of most Central and South Americans derives from one or more lineages without the Anzick-1 affinities present at Lapa do Santo. Thus, a different ANC-A lineage from the one represented in Anzick-1 made the most important contribution to South Americans, and there must have been a population turnover in the mid-Holocene that largely replaced groups such as the ones represented by the ∼10,900 BP individual at Los Rieles in Chile and the ∼9,600 BP individuals at Lapa do Santo in Brazil.
This genetic evidence of a major population turnover correlates with the findings from morphological studies of a population turnover in Brazil around this time (Hubbe et al., 2014).
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
All the Ancient South Americans Descend from the Same Eurasian Source Population
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).
We tested for this signal in the ancient South American individuals with statistics of the form f4(Mbuti, Australasian; X, Mixe or ancient South American), and while we replicated the originally reported signal when X was present-day Karitiana or Surui, we could not detect a signal when X was any of the ancient South Americans (Table S6).
We also studied the statistic f4(Mbuti, Tianyuan; Ancient1, Ancient2) to test if any ancient individual is differentially related to Tianyuan (Yang et al., 2017), but no statistic was significant (Table S6).
We finally applied qpWave to all pairs of South American groups, testing whether they were homogeneously related to a set of diverse non-Native American outgroups (Mbuti, Han, Onge, French, and Papuan) and found no pair of ancient South Americans that consistently gave significant signals, as expected if all the ancient South Americans we analyzed derived from the same stem Native American population (Table S6). Our failure to find significant evidence of Australasian or Paleolithic East Asian affinities in any of the ancient Central and South American individuals raises the question of what ancient populations could have contributed the Population Y signal in Surui and other Amazonian groups and increases the previously small chance that this signal—despite the strong statistical evidence for it—was a false- positive. A priority is to search for the Population Y signal in additional ancient genomes.
Our finding of no excess allele sharing with non-Native American populations in the ancient samples is also striking as many of these individuals—including those at Lapa do Santo—have a “Paleoamerican” cranial morphology that has been suggested to be evidence of the spread of a substructured population of at least two different Native American source populations from Asia to the Americas (von Cramon-Taubadel et al., 2017).
Our finding that early Holocene individuals with such a morphology are consistent with deriving all their ancestry from the same homogeneous ancestral population as other Native Americans extends the finding of Raghavan et al., 2015 who came to a similar conclusion after analyzing Native Americans inferred to have Paleoamerican morphology who lived within the last millennium.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Discussion
Our finding of two previously undocumented genetic exchanges between North and South America has significant implications for models of the peopling of the Americas. Most important, our discovery that the Clovis-associated Anzick-1 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 (Moreno-Mayar et al., 2018a ).
A second notable finding of this study is our evidence that the ancient individuals from the California Channel Islands have distinctive and significant allele sharing with groups that became widespread over the Central Andes after ∼4,200 BP. There is no archaeological evidence of large-scale cultural exchange between North and South America around this time, but it is important to recognize that ∼4,200 BP is a minimum date for the exchange between North and South American that drove this pattern; the gene flow itself could have occurred thousands of years before and the ancestry deriving from it could have persisted in a region of South America not yet sampled with ancient DNA. The evidence of an expansion of this ancestry type in the Central Andes by ∼4,200 BP is notable in light of the increasing density of sites in this region at approximately this time, a pattern that is consistent with a demographic expansion of a previously more restricted population (Goldberg et al., 2016 ). We conclude by highlighting several limitations of this study. First, all the individuals we newly report have a date less than ∼11,000 BP and thus we could not directly probe the initial movements of people into Central and South America. Second, from the period between 11,000–3,000 BP that includes most of our individuals, we lacked ancient data from Amazonia, northern South America, and the Caribbean and thus cannot determine how individuals from these regions relate to the ones we analyzed. Third, because we reported few individuals from after 3000 BP, this study provides just a glimpse of the power of this type of analysis to reveal more recent events. Regionally focused studies with large sample sizes are needed to realize the potential of ancient DNA to reveal how the human diversity of this region came to be the way it is today.
posted
Skoglund et Al believe that the Y-population was already mixed with First Americans / Native Americans when it reached the Americas and specifically the Amazon.
quote: These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas. Although this is a formal possibility, an alternative model that we view as more plausible is that the ‘Population Y’ (after Ypykue´ra, which means‘ancestor’ in the Tupi language family spoken by the Suruı´and Karitiana) that contributed Australasian-related ancestry to Amazonians was already mixed with a lineage related to First Americans at the time it reached Amazonia. When we model such a scenario, we obtain a fit for models that specify 2–85% of the ancestry of the Surui;,Karitiana and Xavante as coming from Population Y. These results show that quite a high fraction of Amazonian ancestry today might be derived from Population Y. At the same time, the results constrain the fraction of Amazonian ancestry that comes from an Australasian related population(via Population Y) to a much tighter range of 1–2% .
Also interesting is that they think that the Australasian component might come from people who are not identical with todays Australians, Melanesians or Andamanese.
quote: while Population Y shows a distant genetic affinity to Andamanese, Australian and New Guinean populations, it is not particularly closely related to any of them, suggesting that the source of population Y in Eurasia no longer exists
One can also point out that for example the 12 600 years old Anzick-1 from North America lacks this signal. Same with the Spirit cave mummy (ca 10 400 years old)
quote: We do not detect any excess affinity to Australasians in the,12,600-year-old Clovis-associated Anzick individual from western Montana
The signal seems to be believed to have came along the Pacific coast, and when it reached South America it so to speak went inland. That can explain why it is not so frequent in North America. It seems to have passed by and not went much inland there.
Skoglund, Pontus et al, 2015: Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas Nature
About one Lagoa Santa individual with some Australasian ancestry. It´s ancestry was about 3% Australasian, also a relatively small portion. That can further support the idea that population Y was already mixed when it reached the Amazon.
quote: Genomic analysis of both Lapa do Santo and Lapa do Sumidouro individuals do not indicate an excess of extra-continental genetic affinities in relation to any modern or past Amerindian populations (Fig. 20). The unique exception is individual ‘Sumidouro 5’—the only high coverage genome (*15x) available for Lagoa Santa—in which a putative *2– 3% ancestry related to Australasian populations (i.e., Andaman, Onge, Papuans and Australians) was identified
André Strauss, et al, 2020: `The Archaeological Record of Lagoa Santa (East-Central Brazil): From the Late Pleistocene to Historical Times`
In Augusto S. Auler Paulo Pessoa (Editors) 2020: Cave and Karst Systems of the World Lagoa Santa Karst: Brazil’s Iconic Karst Region
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Cosimo Posth, Nathan Nakatsuka, Iosif Lazaridis, Johannes Krause, David Reich, et al (2018) Reconstructing the Deep Population History of Central and South America
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
Long-Standing Population Continuity in Multiple Regions of South America
The oldest individuals in the dataset show little specific allele sharing with present-day people. For example, a ∼10,900 BP individual from Chile (Los Rieles) shows only slight excess affinity to later Southern Core individuals.
In Belize, individuals from Mayahak Cab Pek and Saki Tzul dating to ∼9,300 and ∼7,400 BP do not share significantly more alleles with present-day people from the region near Belize than they do with present-day groups elsewhere in Central and South America.
In Brazil, genetic data from sites dating to ∼9,600 BP (Lapa do Santo) and ∼6,700 BP (Laranjal) show no distinctive shared ancestry with present-day Brazilians (Figures 2 and S1; Table S1), although the Laranjal individuals do show potential evidence of shared ancestry with a ∼5,800 BP individual from Moraes (Table S4), confirmed by the statistic f4(Mbuti, Brazil_Laranjal_6700BP; Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Brazil_Moraes_5800BP), which is Z = 7.7 standard errors from zero.
We detect long-standing continuity between ancient and present-day Native Americans in each of the regions of South America we analyzed beginning at least ∼5,800 BP, a pattern that is evident in heatmaps, neighbor-joining trees, and multi-dimensional scaling plots computed on outgroup-f3 statistics (Figures 2, S1, and S2; Table S1).
In Peru, the most ancient individuals dating up to ∼9,000 BP from Cuncaicha and Lauricocha share alleles at the highest rate with present-day indigenous groups living in the Central Andes (Lindo et al., 2018, Llamas et al., 2016).
Individuals dating up to ∼8,600 BP from Arroyo Seco 2 and Laguna Chica also show the strongest allele sharing with some present-day indigenous people in the Southern Core.
In Brazil, the evidence of continuity with present-day indigenous people begins with the Moraes individual at ∼5,800 BP. A striking pattern of continuity with present-day people is also observed in the ∼2,000 BP Jabuticabeira 2 individuals who were part of the Sambaqui shell-mound building tradition that was spread along the south Brazilian coast from around 8,000–1,000 BP. The Jabuticabeira 2 individuals share significantly more alleles with some Ge-speaking groups than they do with some Tupi-Guarani speaking groups who have been predominant on the coast during the post-Colonial period (Figure S3; Table S1). This supports the theory of shared ancestry between the makers of the Sambaqui culture and the speakers of proto-Ge who are hypothesized to have lived in the region ∼2,000 BP (Iriarte et al., 2017). These findings also support the theory of coastal replacement of Ge speakers by Tupi-Guarani speakers after ∼1,000 BP (Hubbe et al., 2009) (STAR Methods).
This reminds me of this article I read several years ago:
Skulls reveals that ancient Americans didn’t mix with neighbours It’s a real head-scratcher. The shapes of human skulls from a narrow strip in Mexico reveal that first arrivals to the Americas may have kept to themselves, even when there were no geographical barriers that would have prevented them mixing.
Genetic studies have begun to unravel the complex story of the earliest American settlers, but archaeological studies can provide important details too – particularly the careful study of human skull shape. This is influenced by someone’s genetic history: when two populations become isolated from each other and can no longer interbreed, they each begin to develop unique genetic signatures – and skull shapes.
Mark Hubbe and Brianne Herrera at the Ohio State University in Columbus and their colleagues took detailed measurements from a series of 800 to 500-year-old skulls unearthed in three regions of Mexico. They then looked at equivalent measurements from skulls found at a number of sites across North and South America, East Asia and Australasia and analysed how skull shape varied with location.
Skulls from two of the Mexican regions – Sonora and Tlanepantla – clustered together in the shape analysis. But skulls from the third region, Michoacán, were different. The variation was on a scale normally seen between two populations that have been separated for millennia, often because they have settled in regions that are thousands of kilometres apart. Yet the distance between Michoacán and Tlanepantla is under 300 kilometres. It’s an astonishing discovery, says Hubbe. Mexico was first inhabited at least 10,000 years ago, and the founding populations may well have had different genetic histories before they settled in the area. Crucially, the populations seem to have been so reluctant to interbreed that those genetic differences were still apparent just 500 years ago. “For whatever reason, these differences have been maintained for thousands of years,” says Hubbe.
Mexico lacks obvious geographical features that could have kept people apart – but formidable cultural and language barriers might have existed, says Hubbe.
“When it comes to population history, a whole host of scenarios are possible,” says Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel of the University at Buffalo, New York. “We see instances even in modern populations where neighbouring groups live in close geographic contact yet do not mix extensively in terms of marriage.” Hubbe and von Cramon-Taubadel collaborated on a second study, which involved analysing another set of early American skulls (pictured top and above). These came from Lagoa Santa in eastern Brazil and date back 10,000 to 7000 years, not long after South America was first inhabited.
“The Lagoa Santa material is unique in the entire New World,” says André Strauss at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who was also involved in the work. “It presents abundant, well-preserved, old skeletons with reliable associated archaeological context.”
The researchers discovered that these earliest South Americans – the “Palaeoamericans” – had skull shapes that are distinctly different from those of most indigenous South American populations alive today.
“The differences between the Palaeoamericans and today’s South Americans are so large that they cannot simply have appeared in 10,000 years,” says Hubbe.
In other words, the Palaeoamericans cannot simply have evolved into today’s indigenous South Americans. Instead, the researchers estimate that the two populations split apart from a shared ancestral population at least 20,000 years ago, offering a much larger time window for the two groups to develop distinct skull features.
Because the consensus is that the Americas were not inhabited 20,000 years ago, this conclusion implies that South America may have been colonised in at least two distinct waves – one represented by the ancient people at Lagoa Santa and another by today’s indigenous South American populations.
This goes against the general assumption that South America was initially colonised in just one wave, before the Europeans arrived. It isn’t the first evidence that the South American story is more complicated, though – a 2015 study also raised the possibility of multiple colonisation waves by uncovering a genetic link between some of today’s Amazonian populations and indigenous groups in Australia.
“It is great to see this new analysis of morphological data,” says Pontus Skoglund at Harvard Medical School, an author on the 2015 study. “It reiterates that there is something interesting about the peopling of the Americas that we don’t quite understand yet.”
Well, know that we have evidence of a peopling of the Americas > 20kya there's no telling what we could find genetically.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26349 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ fascinating that people of same species did not interbreed for so long time, and at the same time we know that our species once interbred with both Neanderthals and Denisovans, who are supposed to be other species.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Well, know that we have evidence of a peopling of the Americas > 20kya there's no telling what we could find genetically.
Probably the most tangible evidence is the foot prints from White Sands in New Mexico which are dated to about 21000 - 23000 years old.
They are preserved in gypsum rich sediments
A picture how it can have looked when people put their footprints at the shore of an ancient lake
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I don't know how much similar morphology applies to close biological relationship.
I think there's enough evidence that it doesn't.
Like the non-close genetic relationship between most Inner Africans, Andamans Islanders, Papuans, and Melanesians who share brown-black skin, nappy hair, broad noses with wide nostrils, and thick lips.
As posted above, my research shows me North or South American paleo-morphology does not necessarily equal Austronesian molecular biology.
Does the extensively quoted Posth et al article indicate Population Y is younger than the earliest American peoples? Moreno-Mayar (2018) didn't find any Austronesian related genome in the Spirit Cave sample which by head morphology resembles Austronesians. They did find Austronesian genomic signature in a 10,400 year old Brazil sample though. They posit these two statements
"Notably, all sequenced Paleoamericans (including Kennewick Man/Ancient One) (2, 10) are genetically closer to contemporary NAs than to any other ancient or contemporary group sequenced to date."
2. M. Raghavan et al., Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans. Science 349, aab3884–aab3884 (2015). doi: 10.1126/science.aab3884; pmid: 26198033
10. M. Rasmussen et al., The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man. Nature 523, 455–458 (2015).
6. P. Skoglund et al., Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas. Nature 525, 104–108 (2015). pmid: 26196601
54. G. R. Scott et al., Sinodonty, Sundadonty, and the Beringian Standstill model: Issues of timing and migrations into the New World. Quat. Int. 466, 233–246 (2018). doi: 10.1016/ j.quaint.2016.04.027
Moreno-Mayar 2018 (Willerslev Labs) F2 K=16 [YYT al~T north to south REDUX]
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Castro e Silva's team and Ribeiro dos Santos' team have the most recent scientific articles. Anybody got any comments/insights on them?
posted
This is a problem with European anthropology and their tendency towards promoting monolithic typologies for populations which in the past were called races, as in trying to define populations by their phenotype (or generally cranial morphology). Native Americans have always been diverse and possessed a wide range of variation in features which in turn are an extension of the wide range of features found in Asia going back thousands of years. Australasians are Asians. They don't all look the same and have variations in features. East Asians are Asians and don't all look the same and have variation in features. Same thing for South Asians and South East Asians. Native Americans live on a continent that extends from both the extreme northern and southern regions and crosses the Equator. All of these populations do not look alike and have a variation of features that span the gamut of features found in Asia from lighter skin North Asian features, to tropical Pacific type features, to South Asian features and Aboriginal Australian features. It is consistent with these populations being descended from an ancient Asian root whether they call came in one wave or not. Trying to model these populations as a monolithic "type" is the issue and the facts on the ground don't support it, as this variation can still be seen to this very day. But these European scientists just cannot seem to accept that. After all some of these same people were also not to long ago triggering Native Americans by trying to argue that early Native Americans looked like Patrick Stewart (kennewick man reconstruction). And this exposes the fact that all of these typologies have always been used to try and push the idea that all over the world, advancement in culture throughout history was associated with a gradient in skin color. So any kind of advanced culture was always assumed to be associated with light skin and more primitive cultures always associated with dark skin. And yes a lot of that mentality still exists in these modern academic models. In fact, Australasians were often seen as the most primitive examples of hour species and remnants of archaic hominids by European anthropologists even up to less than 100 years ago.
Posts: 8901 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think you are confusing Australasian with Austronesian. Australasians are dark-skinned peoples like Aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, and Southeast Asian Negritos. Austronesians are people who speak Austronesian languages, such as aboriginal Taiwanese, Filipinos, Malays, and Polynesians. There are some people of Australasian type (e.g. Fijians and some other Melanesians) who speak Austronesian languages, but most Austronesians look more like modern "Sundadont" Southeast Asians than dark-skinned Australasians.
posted
Yes, morphology varied quite a bit among ancient Native Americans, and some researchers have tried to put them in different racial categories, thus the Kennewick man was, based on his skull, thought to maybe have been more related to Europeans, while Luzia in the beginning was classified as Australasian or even African.
Once upon a time (1970s) polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski, classified Mesoamerican skulls as both European and African (he did for some reason not use other Native American skulls as reference).
Even earlier back in time people like the Swedish race scientist Anders Retzius thought that Native Americans had different geographical origins depending on which skull forms they had. Thus these researchers thought that natives with short skulls descended from Asia while those with long skulls descended from North Africa or the Canary islands.
Today most of these classifications have to be abandoned since genetics have shown that both now living and ancient Native American peoples are more related to each other than to any populations from outside the Americas.
Some facial reconstructions: Top left: Eve of Naharon (Mexico) Top right: Spirit cave (USA) Bottom left: Luzia (Brazil) Bottom right: Kennewick man (USA)
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
You also have to look at catalog of skulls they are using to compare to Above some Mayans but in their skull collection for Native Americans did they have some of these broader headed types below? Sometimes you find that their comparison skull data sets are limited but I'm not sure the case here
If someone with expertise was analyzing their skulls with no other information given could they get the continent right? My guess is they might not
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes, morphology varied quite a bit among ancient Native Americans, and some researchers have tried to put them in different racial categories, thus the Kennewick man was, based on his skull, thought to maybe have been more related to Europeans, while Luzia in the beginning was classified as Australasian or even African.
Once upon a time (1970s) polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski, classified Mesoamerican skulls as both European and African (he did for some reason not use other Native American skulls as reference).
Even earlier back in time people like the Swedish race scientist Anders Retzius thought that Native Americans had different geographical origins depending on which skull forms they had. Thus these researchers thought that natives with short skulls descended from Asia while those with long skulls descended from North Africa or the Canary islands.
Today most of these classifications have to be abandoned since genetics have shown that both now living and ancient Native American peoples are more related to each other than to any populations from outside the Americas.
Some facial reconstructions: Top left: Eve of Naharon (Mexico) Top right: Spirit cave (USA) Bottom left: Luzia (Brazil) Bottom right: Kennewick man (USA)
^ Yes, that is exactly why racial concepts of "caucasoid" and "negroid" are called into question. The same type of craniometric diversity is seen in Africa yet some use that as their basis to de-Africanize or Eurasianize (white-wash) Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^^ fascinating that people of same species did not interbreed for so long time, and at the same time we know that our species once interbred with both Neanderthals and Denisovans, who are supposed to be other species.
Yes, which means there was some socio-cultural factors at play which prevented such interbreeding.
By the way, that there was some deep genetic distinction among the Paleoindians may not be reflected in craniofacial form but it sure was reflected in dental morphology.
LAPA VERMELHA IV HOMINID 1: MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN All this information indicates that the Americas were first occupied by a generalized population of Homo sapiens very similar to the one that departed from East Asia to Australia around 50,000 B.P., and whose remote origins ultimately can be traced back to Africa (Lahr, 1995; Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1997). This morphology is primarily characterized by very long and narrow skulls, short and narrow faces, with short orbits and noses. A process of in situ microevolution leading to mongolization cannot be ruled out to explain what is seen in terms of cranial morphology in later native American populations, namely broad faces and vaults, tall faces with tall orbits and noses. As Lahr (1995) emphasized, this would have implicated a tremendous amount of convergent evolution in Asia and in the Americas. This becomes even more difficult to accept if we recall that Sutter (1997) has suggested that dental morphology has also changed from a sundadont to a sinodont pattern in prehistoric coastal Chile and Peru during the Middle Holocene. Another indicator that weakens the local microevolution argument is that, at least in South America, the evidence seems to point to a major population replacement around 8,000 to 9,000 years B.P., when the generalized morphology was abruptly replaced by the classic Mongoloid morphology (Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1996a).
The typical Indigenous American dental form is not only sinodonty but super-sinodonty, yet we see traces of sundadonty in South American specimens. This could only mean genetically distinct populations.
Posts: 26349 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Yes, morphology varied quite a bit among ancient Native Americans, and some researchers have tried to put them in different racial categories, thus the Kennewick man was, based on his skull, thought to maybe have been more related to Europeans, while Luzia in the beginning was classified as Australasian or even African.
Once upon a time (1970s) polish anthropologist Andrzej Wiercinski, classified Mesoamerican skulls as both European and African (he did for some reason not use other Native American skulls as reference).
Even earlier back in time people like the Swedish race scientist Anders Retzius thought that Native Americans had different geographical origins depending on which skull forms they had. Thus these researchers thought that natives with short skulls descended from Asia while those with long skulls descended from North Africa or the Canary islands.
Today most of these classifications have to be abandoned since genetics have shown that both now living and ancient Native American peoples are more related to each other than to any populations from outside the Americas.
Some facial reconstructions: Top left: Eve of Naharon (Mexico) Top right: Spirit cave (USA) Bottom left: Luzia (Brazil) Bottom right: Kennewick man (USA)
^ Yes, that is exactly why racial concepts of "caucasoid" and "negroid" are called into question. The same type of craniometric diversity is seen in Africa yet some use that as their basis to de-Africanize or Eurasianize (white-wash) Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: ^^ fascinating that people of same species did not interbreed for so long time, and at the same time we know that our species once interbred with both Neanderthals and Denisovans, who are supposed to be other species.
Yes, which means there was some socio-cultural factors at play which prevented such interbreeding.
By the way, that there was some deep genetic distinction among the Paleoindians may not be reflected in craniofacial form but it sure was reflected in dental morphology.
LAPA VERMELHA IV HOMINID 1: MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN All this information indicates that the Americas were first occupied by a generalized population of Homo sapiens very similar to the one that departed from East Asia to Australia around 50,000 B.P., and whose remote origins ultimately can be traced back to Africa (Lahr, 1995; Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1997). This morphology is primarily characterized by very long and narrow skulls, short and narrow faces, with short orbits and noses. A process of in situ microevolution leading to mongolization cannot be ruled out to explain what is seen in terms of cranial morphology in later native American populations, namely broad faces and vaults, tall faces with tall orbits and noses. As Lahr (1995) emphasized, this would have implicated a tremendous amount of convergent evolution in Asia and in the Americas. This becomes even more difficult to accept if we recall that Sutter (1997) has suggested that dental morphology has also changed from a sundadont to a sinodont pattern in prehistoric coastal Chile and Peru during the Middle Holocene. Another indicator that weakens the local microevolution argument is that, at least in South America, the evidence seems to point to a major population replacement around 8,000 to 9,000 years B.P., when the generalized morphology was abruptly replaced by the classic Mongoloid morphology (Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1996a).
The typical Indigenous American dental form is not only sinodonty but super-sinodonty, yet we see traces of sundadonty in South American specimens. This could only mean genetically distinct populations.
All of these papers, their contrary views and the back and forth about these ancient populations still boil down to an attempt to promote racial typologies. Sundadont and Sindadonty are both tied to outdated concepts of mongoloid morphologies in Asia.
quote: On the basis of tooth morphology, Christy G. Turner II argued that Native American populations were derived from Northeast Asians who exhibited a specialized Sinodont dental pattern, featuring crown complexity and root simplification. Researchers who focus on craniometrics (e.g., Walter Neves, Doug Owsley) question this interpretation, positing instead two source populations for Native Americans -- an early group that shows its greatest similarity to Southeast Asian and Oceanic populations and a later group allied to Northeast Asians. This view has also been argued by dental researchers who claim the presence of both Sundadont and Sinodont dental patterns in the New World. We address this impasse by constructing three models that lay out the expectations for: (1) Sinodont only descendants; (2) Sundadont early, Sinodont late; and (3) the Beringian standstill, with commonalities among New World groups and distinct differences from both Southeast Asians and Northeast Asians. One dental trait (3RM1) shows a pattern of variation consistent with model 2, but the majority of traits are equally divided in supporting the Sinodont only (1) and Beringian standstill (2) models. The possibility of Southeast Asia and Oceania serving as significant source populations for the colonization of the New World is not supported by dental morphological data.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Recently, some fossilized human footprints found in New Mexico have been dated to 23,000 years ago, making them the oldest such tracks thus found in the Americas.
The weird thing is, genetic research has implied that Native Americans alive today trace the majority of their ancestry to migrants from northeastern Asia who arrived between 15,000 and 13,000 years ago, long after these tracks were laid. However, a few populations in South America do contain small bits of ancestry from another population that also admixed with Aboriginal Australians, named "Population Y".
It seems likely to me that the people who laid those footprints in New Mexico 23 kya were either Population Y or a related group of people.
I wonder what these people would have looked like? Would they have looked Black like modern Australasians, or would they have been lighter brown and more "Mongoloid" in appearance like modern East Asian and Native Americans?
Notice here Brandon opens the thread using the term Black (and he capitalizes the b) and comparing this to Mongoloid This is how the average American defines the word "Black" as an oid Not a Mongoloid a Negroid and a Negro is defined by modern Americans and Europeans as not just skin color but someone of broad features and 99% of the time afro hair Inconsistently Brandon uses the term Mongoloid but then he switches to Black when he opens the comment. He does not call East Indians black he calls Australians black because they have broad features resembling many (not all) Africans. I'm not arguing any of this I'm talking about language usage in America and intent Americans rarely call East Indians black and seldom do East Asians call themselves black. Yet they are often as dark as perceived African-looking/ish people that are called Black in America Occasional when someone specifically references skin then they might call a dark East Indian black but in America "Black" as used by multi-millions of people strongly connotes more than just skin color. It means "West African looking" and not just skin.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Black skinned Asians are Asians not Africans...
There is nothing wrong with celebrating black people around the world in ancient and modern times along with their culture and history. Obviously that disproves the notion that black skin equates with inferiority as the earliest cultures and civilization often came from people with black skin. But to call all of these people Africans is just as much pseudoscience as anything else. If you go back further in time all humans converge on an Africoid phenotype because all humans originate in Africa, but that is over tens of thousands of years ago.
So here Doug starts with "Black skinned Asians" He doesn't say Black Asians Does he say "Black skinned Africans" ?? No
Then he says There is nothing wrong with celebrating black people around the world
Now inconsistently he switches from "Black skinned Asians" to "black people around the world" and this implies that the Black skinned Asians are "black People"
Why didn't he just says "Black Asians"
because this is musical chairs It may not be intentional but it is in effect doubletalk No, "black people" in America is not merely a reference to skin alone and we all know this Of you want to refer to skin alone you say "dark skinned" or "dark brown skinned"
So games are encouraged when you are talking about anthropology and you start off with "black", a term that can be bent this way or that to serve the convenience of the moment Then further down he says " If you go back further in time all humans converge on an Africoid phenotype"
This word "Africoid" that is another "oid" term It is equivalent to the less polite "Negroid" and it refers to features and skull type in addition to color
Opening post:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
I wonder what these people would have looked like? Would they have looked Black like modern Australasians, or would they have been lighter brown and more "Mongoloid" in appearance like modern East Asian and Native Americans?
When you open an anthropology thread and use terms like "white" or "black" it is going to lead to long unnecessary diatribes
look how simple it is to leave that out and relive the topic of unnecessary diversions
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
I wonder what these people would have looked like? Would they have looked like modern Australasians or would they have looked more like modern East Asians and Native Americans?
^^ we don't have White, Black , Negroid, Africoid, Caucasian
None of these old school racial paradigm terms are necessary to open the conversation and if you want to reference skin you can still say "dark skinned" and if you want to talk about a specific physical feature you can still do so without these terms (and keeping in mind ancient skulls usually have no skin or hair (except mummies sometimes)
but I guess people love the diversions and that by using the term "Black" they are helping people
but it's not helping people it's causing confusion
Posts: 42988 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that it is a bit hard for researchers to get a good grip on who actually colonized the Americas and where the source population came from. And how many waves and how and when.
Genetically all ancient Americans show a relationship to each other and to todays Native Americans. Morphologically, both concerning skull form and dental morphology all the different papers show a picture that sometimes can be a bit confusing.
Also a bit of confusion about exactly when the first humans arrived.
What we know is that we have foot prints about 21000 - 23 000 years ago in New Mexico.
We have a 13 600 years old skeleton from Mexico.
We have about 13 000 years old DNA from Paisley caves in Oregon.
We have DNA from the 12 6000 years old Anzick-1 child in Montana.
We have DNA from the 10 400 years old Spirit cave mummy from Montana.
We have DNA from some of the about 10 000 years old Lagoa Santa individuals in Brazil.
We have DNA from the Kennewick man from Washington state in USA
Seems that the genetics tells about a closer relatedness than the morphological traits show us. Which raises questions about genetics vs morphology, and how well morphology reflects genetic differences.
The two oldest Americans so far that have been well preserved enough to show non skeletal and non dental phenotypical traits as hair are the Spirit cave mummy and the 9000 years old Acha man from Chile. Both had preserved hair. In the Spirit cave mummy it is described as short and straight. The Acha mans hair also seems straight.
The spirit cave mummy has also been DNA tested regarding skin and eye color and came up with a result concordant with many Native Americans of today. When it comes to the Lagoa Santa people one individual (Sumidouro 5, the one with 2-3 % Australasian ancestry) showed skin color, eye color and hair color that also was consistent with now living Native American variation. All samples, both now living and ancient did turn out somewhat differently though regarding which measurement tool was used, since different tools were built around different color systems.
quote: In conclusion, the seven ancient Native Americans studied here were predicted to have intermediate/brown eyes, black hair and intermediate/darker skin pigmentation, which is highly consistent (a) with predictions we made from genomes of 22 contemporary Native Americans [19] and (b) with anthropological knowledge regarding Native American pigmentation variation [26–29].
Telles Carratto TM, et al 2020:´Insights on hair, skin and eye color of ancient and contemporary Native Americans´ Forensic Science International: Genetics (2020)
The methodology to get such information is getting better so maybe future DNA testing regarding skin color, eye color, hair color and hair type can be fruitful.
In Europe they seem already have developed tools to discern skin color from rather degraded DNA
Phenotyping the ancient world: The physical appearance and ancestry of very degraded samples from a chalcolithic human remains Science direct, 2017
posted
One of the now living individuals who was most like the Sumidouro 5 individual, in both tools that calculated skin color from DNA, belongs to the Karitiana people, who also have a small Australasian signal in their DNA, just like Sumidouro 5.
A person from the Karitiana people in Brazil
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2707 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic