*Dr. Clyde Winters Uthman dan Fodio Institute, Chicago, USA *Author for Correspondence
ABSTRACT The Melanesians are assumed to be a relic population of the Pacific, that probably made their way to Oceania shortly after the Out of Africa event. The toponymic, archaeological, craniometric and pan-African genomic evidence indicate that the Melanesians probably came to Oceania from Africa and Southeast (SE) Asia 4kya.
quote: RESULTS Craniometric and DNA evidence support a late Neolithic colonization of Oceania by African and Dravidian populations. This migration went through mainland East Asia and Southeast Asia onto the Pacific Islands.
Reyes-Centeno et al., (2014) model hypothetical geographical migration routes out of Africa (OoA).
These researchers maintain that cranial shape and genetic polymorphisms indicate Australo-Melenesian populations as representative of isolated early population dispersal.Although this is the view of Reyes-Centeno et al., (2014) there is no archaeological or genetic evidence which suggest that the Melanesians represent a “relic” population.
Reyes-Centeno et al., (2014) fails to recognize that there is a craniometric difference between Australoids/Australians, Mongoloids ( Polynesians) and Melanoids; craniometric differences that indicate two migrations of the Black Variety: Australians and Melanesians into the Pacific. Tsuenehiko Hanihare (2005) discussed the phenotypic variations between these populations.
The Australian aborigines and Melanesians show cranial variants and represent two distinct Black populations. There is no denying that the Australians probably represent a “relic” population relating to an early OoA event during the late Pleistocene, but the craniometrics, archaeological and toponymic evidence indicate a fairly recent migration of Melanesians into Oceania (Winters, 2013).
posted
Dr. Keita attempts to explain Polytopicity , by claiming that although the Melanesians and Africans look similar they are not related because they speak different languages and possess disimilar genes.
Use of melanesians and Africans to exemplify Polytopicity was a bad analogy, because Africans and Melanesians are not only Negroes, they also share genes, placenames and language.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans carry one set of genes, and other populations outside Africa carry a different and unique set of genes. Although this is the case in many cases the populations are carrying African genes--whoes name has been changed to erase any unity between Sub-Saharan Africa and everyone else.
For example, Africans and Melanesians share haplogroups.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. Obviously, use of Melanesians and Africans does not support Polytopicity.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Keita attempts to explain Polytopicity , by claiming that although the Melanesians and Africans look similar they are not related because they speak different languages and possess disimilar genes.
Use of melanesians and Africans to exemplify Polytopicity was a bad analogy, because Africans and Melanesians are not only Negroes, they also share genes, placenames and language.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans carry one set of genes, and other populations outside Africa carry a different and unique set of genes. Although this is the case in many cases the populations are carrying African genes--whoes name has been changed to erase any unity between Sub-Saharan Africa and everyone else.
For example, Africans and Melanesians share haplogroups.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. Obviously, use of Melanesians and Africans does not support Polytopicity.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic