quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia.

---

quote:

---

These Blacks were the Australian type

---

quote:

---

The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans
who settled the area after being forced from Asia.

---

quote:

---

The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.

---

quote:

---

The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp),

---

quote:

---

I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.

---

quote:

---

The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa.

---

quote:

---

I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp.

---

quote:

---

Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.

---

quote:

---

The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu)

---

quote:

---

type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk.

---

quote:

---

The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.

---

quote:

---

By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia.

---

quote:

---

The classical mongoloids

---

You must really like this term. It's really just the equivalent of true negro, another white supremacist race-ruse.

It simply seeks to contrict East Asian to a stereotype of the most extreme ethnic features.

What is a non-classic mongoloid?

What is and un-true negroid?

Meanwhile all 'caucaZoid' are *real* caucasoid, no matter how different the pheneotypes so classified may be.

You should stop repeating after Eurocentrists.

quote:

---

The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.

---

quote:

---

It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward.

---

You must have set a new record for the use of the term classical mongoloid.

quote:

---

By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.

---

quote:

---

The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.

---

quote:

---

These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas.

---

Which takes us back to.

Please provide specifics.

- time of origin
- which ethnic groups originate at this place and time.
- what genetic lineages can denote the relationships you claim.

My opinion is that you are a clever man who enjoys making up your own fake history, and then challenging people to debunk it.

In a way it's fitting, since this is basically what Eurocentrists quite systematically do, and have done for the past few centuries now.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde your chronology is useless.

You make it seem as there was a GAP between the populations who migrated OOA and the later so called Mongoloids who you say settled Asia.

First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia. These are all still primarily black folks. Over the same time period these populations also expanded into India and central Asia and the extreme North of Asia. These populations expanded into Asia over the period between 90 and 50,000 years ago. All of these people are still primarily dark skinned people. Around 20,000 - 15,000 years ago, lighter skin (white skin) began to develop among the populations in the extreme northern and central regions of Asia and Europe. However, even at this time there was still a large population of blacks in all parts of Asia and elsewhere. It has been during the last 5,000 years that these populations have begun to become more predominant in many parts of the globe and the last 1,000 has been the period of the greatest expansion.

---

quote:

---

Doug: First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:This all hypothetical. Please provide any skeletal evidence supporting this migration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Doug: First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia.

---

quote:

---

Clyde:This all hypothetical. Please provide any skeletal evidence supporting this migration.

---

There is very recent genetic evidence from your good friend Kisivild.


Geneticists re-examining the first settlement of Australia and Papua-New Guinea by modern humans have concluded that the two islands were reached some 50,000 years ago by a single group of people who remained in substantial or total isolation until recent times The results show that Aborigines and the people of Papua-New Guinea share several ancient genetic lineages, indicating that both are descended from a single founding population.

All Australian Aborigines, at least to judge by the genetic samples in hand, are descended from this founding population, meaning that no further immigrants reached Australia in numbers large enough to leave a genetic trace until the modern era.

The findings, by Toomas Kisivild and a group of geneticists and archaeologists situated mostly at the University of Cambridge in England, are reported today in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/science/08abor.html?pagewanted=print

^ Please provide any evidence to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This what I said. I said that the Australians represent the early settlers of the Pacific.

---

quote:

---

I also acknowledged that the Hill Melanesians are probably decendants of the ancient settlers of Asia, but the coastal Melanesians are of recent African origin and show less genetic unity with the Hill Melanesians and Australians. See this article which discuss the molecular relationship between the Hill and Coastal Oceanians:

Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia.

---

Of course.

quote:

---

These Blacks were the Australian type

---

Australian aborigine have some unique ethnic features, then there are polynesian, south Asian, Melanesian.....who also have their own unique features.

quote:

---

The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans
who settled the area after being forced from Asia.

---

Please specify the following.

- the ethnic groups of coastal Melanesians you are referring to.

- the genetic lineages that can confirm they are of direct descendants of recent Africans.

- the time period that would qualify as recent.

quote:

---

The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.

---

Mongoloid describes a race typology no longer in technical use

In terms of skulls and skin, it is supposed to be qualified by prominent cheekbones and epicanthic folds, but both of these features are native to Africa, and so do not denote/determine phylo-genetic relationships.

quote:

---

The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp),

---

This is non-sequitur, and typifies how those who think in terms of race, cannot sustain a logical discourse.

Asia was not settled *from* Australia or by Australians.

Australia was settled by migrations from Africa, to Arabia and Southern Asia and thence to Australia, some 60kya.

quote:

---

I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.

---

I agree with you here.

quote:

---

The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa.

---

I do not agree with appelation of Anu to the diminuative Blacks of Southern Asia.

It is not a native appelation, and it creates confusion between three distinct groups of people.

The native Ainu of Japan - who are neither Black nor African, nor 'pygmy' [small].

The Anu of Ancient Egypt - who bear no proven relationship to the Japanese.

And the Melanesians, who are distinct from both the Japanese Ainu and the Ancient Egyptian Anu.

Nothing relates them accept a similar sounding name, which is a triffling coincidence around which you build a monumentally overblown fairy-tale.

quote:

---

I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp.

---

Go ahead and make up your own 'classes' [pseudo-anthropology], meanwhile there is no specific lineological relationship between 34 thousand year old Iberians, 5 thousand year old Egpytians, and current day Ainu of Japan.

Indeed it would be hard to pic three more arbitrary and unrelated groups...if you were trying to do so.

quote:

---

Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.

---

This is your personal mythology declaration, no aspect of the above has been demonstrated as fact from your post.

quote:

---

The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu)

---

More fake-ed up typologies. How is a 'bushman' [do you mean the south AFrican San] a proto-Bantu?

quote:

---

type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk.

---

It is true that CroMagnon 'homo sapiens', replaced Neanderthal, not 'homo sapiens.

Don't know what this has to do with bushman [south african hunter gatherer] and proto bantu [1st speakers of bantu languages]. (?)

quote:

---

The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.

---

I don't think African migrations can be broken down so neatly.

Everyone on earth is ultimately either African or the product of some kind of African migration.

quote:

---

By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia.

---

You do realize that some race-typologists claim that Bushman are mon-go-loid, which simply means they have prominent cheekbones, and epicanthic folds, so....what makes 'bushman' as opposed to 'mongoloid' according to Dr. Winters?

quote:

---

The classical mongoloids

---

You must really like this term. It's really just the equivalent of true negro, another white supremacist race-ruse.

It simply seeks to contrict East Asian to a stereotype of the most extreme ethnic features.

What is a non-classic mongoloid?

What is and un-true negroid?

Meanwhile all 'caucaZoid' are *real* caucasoid, no matter how different the pheneotypes so classified may be.

You should stop repeating after Eurocentrists.

quote:

---

The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.

---

Non sequitur.

What doe the fake race typology of classical mongoloid has to do with Mesopotamia or Sumeria?

quote:

---

It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward.

---

You must have set a new record for the use of the term classical mongoloid.

quote:

---

By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.

---

I thought you claimed the Shang were Mandingo, or something?

quote:

---

The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.

---

All different peoples, could be 'kushites' in any language context in which kushite means blacks, yes.

quote:

---

These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas.

---

Which takes us back to.

Please provide specifics.

- time of origin
- which ethnic groups originate at this place and time.
- what genetic lineages can denote the relationships you claim.

My opinion is that you are a clever man who enjoys making up your own fake history, and then challenging people to debunk it.

In a way it's fitting, since this is basically what Eurocentrists quite systematically do, and have done for the past few centuries now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Clyde your chronology is useless.

You make it seem as there was a GAP between the populations who migrated OOA and the later so called Mongoloids who you say settled Asia.

First off, the OOA populations who settled in Asia stayed along the southern coast. About 90,000 years ago. about 60,000 years ago elements of these populations migrated to Australia. These are all still primarily black folks. Over the same time period these populations also expanded into India and central Asia and the extreme North of Asia. These populations expanded into Asia over the period between 90 and 50,000 years ago. All of these people are still primarily dark skinned people. Around 20,000 - 15,000 years ago, lighter skin (white skin) began to develop among the populations in the extreme northern and central regions of Asia and Europe. However, even at this time there was still a large population of blacks in all parts of Asia and elsewhere. It has been during the last 5,000 years that these populations have begun to become more predominant in many parts of the globe and the last 1,000 has been the period of the greatest expansion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol I will not waste my time discussing the molecular evidence linking the coastal Melanesians and Africans in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This what I said. I said that the Australians represent the early settlers of the Pacific.

---

This is true of Australia and New Guinea too.

I thought you had implied that Asia was settled from Australia.

The reason that Australians and New Guineans are thought to represent original Out of Africa migrants who entered Australia from South Asia is because they share deep rooted lineages with South Asians.

quote:

---

I also acknowledged that the Hill Melanesians are probably decendants of the ancient settlers of Asia, but the coastal Melanesians are of recent African origin and show less genetic unity with the Hill Melanesians and Australians. See this article which discuss the molecular relationship between the Hill and Coastal Oceanians:

Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-.

.

---

Ok. Here is what this study says...


Analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and nonrecombining Y chromosome (NRY) variation in the same populations are sometimes concordant but sometimes discordant. Perhaps the most dramatic example known of the latter concerns Polynesians, in which about 94% of Polynesian mtDNAs are of East Asian origin, while about 66% of Polynesian Y chromosomes are of Melanesian origin. Here we analyze on a genome-wide scale, to our knowledge for the first time, the origins of the autosomal gene pool of Polynesians by screening 377 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci in 47 Pacific Islanders and compare the results with those obtained from 44 Chinese and 24 individuals from Papua New Guinea. Our data indicate that on average about 79% of the Polynesian autosomal gene pool is of East Asian origin and 21% is of Melanesian origin. The genetic data thus suggest a dual origin of Polynesians with a high East Asian but also considerable Melanesian component

^ I don't see the part about recent African origin of Melanesian, 'coastal or otherwise'.

Can you help us see what you are talking about?

---

quote:

---

The admixture estimates also depend critically on the choice of “parental” populations. Linguistic evidence strongly suggests that Taiwan was the ancestral homeland of the proto-Austronesians23 who ultimately colonized Polynesia, which in turn suggests that Taiwan Aborigines may be a more appropriate “Asian parental” population than Han Chinese.

However, mtDNA and NRY evidence suggests further bottlenecks in aboriginal Taiwanese1, 24 and that Han Chinese and other East Asian groups are highly similar to one another and are as similar (or even more similar) to Polynesians than are aboriginal Taiwanese.4 Thus, the use of a different East Asian group is unlikely to change the admixture estimate.

With regard to the “Melanesian parental” population, the admixture between Polynesian ancestors and Melanesians took most likely place somewhere in coastal/island New Guinea (probably the Bismarck Archipelago9, 10) because Austronesians arrived in Melanesia by boat, so it may be argued that a coastal/island New Guinea population would be more appropriate than a highland New Guinea population as the parental Melanesian population. However, coastal/island New Guinea populations usually exhibit some proportion of Asian mtDNA and/or NRY types4, 9 as result of genetic admixture, whereas non-Austronesian-speaking highland New Guinea groups usually lack Asian-specific markers resulting from a lack of such admixture.4, 25 Therefore, Highland New Guineans provide the best available estimate of a nonadmixed Melanesian population.

---

quote:

---

Hypotheses have been confirmed that the Dravidians and Melanesians are of African origin. You can not change this reality by saying that no relationship exist.

---

This is another boring, childish, phony argument from Dr. Winters.

Relationship between Africans and Melanesians is as follows: Africans, Asians, Europeans, Melanesians, Australians, and Native Americans are all the same *species* - homo sapien sapien, which originate in Africa 130K plus years ago.

There is no specific ancestral ie - ethnic - relationship between Africans and Melanesians and or Dravidians.

Melanesians and Dravidians are *NOT* recent migrants from Africa.

Indeed Melanesian and African they are among the *least related* populations on earth.

This lack of relationship between Melanesian {oceania} and Africans can be shown:




^ And explained:

* graph a -> shows the African trunk, or root of all humanity, and then the order in which the base non african populations split from africans.

1st all non africans.

2nd pacific islanders from eurasians

3rd europeans split from east asians

4th americans split from east asians.

* graph b -> shows present and resultant genetic distance, confirming the relative antiquity of the separation of africans and pacific islander, and the relative significance of later admixture in europeans, from africans. In graph b, melanesia and africa are the least related populations in the world.

^ Dr. Winters, what is the purpose of lying about Dravidian origins?

Why do you do it?

Your lie is transparent and obvious.

No one on this forum has bought into it in over a year.

No educated person ever will.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

I never said these researchers claimed that the coastal Melanesians were originally of African origin.

---

^ No, you said it yourself: "Coastal Melanesian are of recent African origin".

I am saying that the research contradicts you.

Also you site the research in support of your claims, then turn around and state that you are not claiming the research support you, which only means that it is *misleading* of you to cite research, which does not support you, to begin with.

lol lol lol.

To watch you spin yourself in circles arguing, is like watching a math professor argue that 2x2 = 5.

We both know you're lying.

The fun of it, is really in finding out who is dumb enough to fall for it.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
^^^Throughout this debate you have failed to dispute the linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence supporting this relationship.

Frankly I don't care if you ever accept the truth that Dravidians and Africans are genetically related I will let my future publications on these theme that appear in genetics journal validate and confirm the African origin of the Dravidians.

The topic of this thread is the classical mongoloids not the Dravidians . So, please present any skeletal evidence that Han and Classical mongoloid skeletons preceed the Neolithic Melanoid skeletons.

Coastal Melanesians carry more East Asian genes than the Hill Melanesians who represent the ancient population.

Please explain how the genetic data disputes a recent origin for the coastal Melanesians when we have evidence that 1) Neolithic Melanoid/Negro people were living in East Asia; and 2) the Lapita culture shows that migration from East Asia took place that led to a new population arriving on the coastal areas of near Oceania which may reflect the settlement of the region by this new population of Melanoids/Negroes.

.
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Clyde Winters wrote

-----------------------
this new population of Melanoids/Negroes
-----------------------

What is a Melanoid, what is a Mongoloid,and what is a Negro?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Throughout this debate you have failed to dispute the linguistic, anthropological and archaeological evidence supporting this relationship.

---

There isn't any.

Your entire thesis is ridiculous.

At some level, you apparently know this.

This is why when i ask you for straight answers, you never have any, but provide only empty rhetoric.

I only engage you for the fun of it.

There is nothing *serious* here to discuss.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

The topic of this thread is the classical mongoloids not the Dravidians . So, please present any skeletal evidence that Han and Classical mongoloid skeletons preceed the Neolithic Melanoid skeletons.

---

^ I love the way you ask nonsensical questions, and challenge others to make sense of them with the answer.

Not possible.

quote:

---

Coastal Melanesians carry more East Asian genes than the Hill Melanesians who represent the ancient population.

---

quote:

---

Please explain how the genetic data disputes a recent origin for the coastal Melanesians

---

This is another tell-tale sign of your dishonest argument.

You can't even repeat -correctly- your own claims, because they are not defensible.

You claimed a recent *AFRICAN* origin, have you forgotten?

In your above statement you leave out african.

Why?

Because you can't prove this.

Why?

Because it isn't true.

So all you do is try to cover for outre' claims with bogus insinuation-arguments. [withdraw the claim, but still imply the claim]


As for the genetic data, you have already had it shown to you, so I will continue to explain it.

The main Y chromosome lineages of Africa are:

A

B

and.....

E

There is no A,B, or E in melanesia..... therefore Melanesians are not of recent African origin.

Melanesian lineages are 100% C/D or F derived.

C, D and F = everything that is not A,B or E

[all lineages such as R1b, or J are derived from base lineages such as F]

The reason that Melanesians are at such a great genetic distance from Africans is that their ancestors migrated out of Africa, along with the ancestors of Europeans and NorthEast Asians, 80kya ago.

However they are so far away geographically from Africa, that they have had little if any biological interaction with Africans since the initial outmigration.

This is quite unlike Europeans who have mixed in with Africans repeatedly *the neolithic*, Moorish times, etc..

That's why Europeans are closer to Africans than Melanesians are.

This is a material fact, that falsifies your entire thesis....


Given this reality, your jabbering on about classic Mongoloids is utterly meaningless.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.


.

---

quote:

---

Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous

---

Winters needs to look up and study the following concept:

reification: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.

ex: Anu, who are supposed to be Ancient Egyptian and Melanesian...and, Japanese, and Cro-Magnon Europeans...... who once had a great civilisation.


^ Pure re-if-ic-a-tion.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Okay, the problem I have with the classification of "mongoloid" is the exact same with "negroid"!!

First of all, there seems to be a blief by some prominent members in this forum of there being a solid division in skin color.-- That one is either 'black' or 'white' with no in between. This is nonsense because skin color varies and grades evenly. The label 'black' is usually used for people who are very dark in complexion whereas 'white' is used for people who are very pale yet what about those are neither that dark or that pale?? I know all labels for skin color are subjective, but does it make sense to call any person of who isn't fair-skinned black? We know that very dark or black skin came first and was the original color of homo-sapiens who originated in the tropics, specifically Africa. We know that as populations in Eurasia migrated out of the tropics and into northern climes they began to loose their pigment with some populations losing more dramatically than others. So what about those peoples who lost pigmentation but are not fair-skinned and are usually refered to as 'brown' such as Inuit (Eskimos) who supplemented their vitamin D with marine meat as well as East Asian groups who moved back into the tropics like Taiwanese and Filipinos?...





Or Altaic people like Turks and Mongols?..





Or even Tibetans?..

...

This seems to reflect a double standard. We know black peoples vary in features, so why can't east Asians? It seems some folks here want to go by the 'true mongoloid' or as other Western scholars call it the "classic mongoloid" look. To which 'true' east asians must look like the below..



This is like saying 'true' blacks can only look like Alek Wek!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ All racialists wield the same double-edged sword, as they use typologies to attempt to define history on their own ideological terms.

The manner in which racialist regard the Ainu of Japan provide and example of principal.

White supremacists claim the Ainu of Japan are 'caucasian.'~

Winters and Marc Washington claim they are 'negroe'~.


Both views would seek to appropriate indigineous Japanese culture and people into mythological racial view:

For the white supremacists - 'caucasian' can be claimed as responsible for essentially any and every civilisation.

For Winters/Washington - the entire world can be made to consist of 'global negroe' civilisation.

The method by which they try to assert his, is really what this thread is about.

Mongolian is and ethnicity. It is not a race.

It may be that many people who have 'slanted' eyes and high cheekbones share and ancestral relationship. But there are also East Asians who do not have these pronounced features, but who are still related to those who do.

As for skin color - the reason that most East Asians do not typically define themselves ethnically in terms of skin color is because it varies too much.

Europeans define themselves as white, because they tend to be significantly paler than non Europeans.

Relatively, they are at and extreme in terms of skin color.

Africans define themselves black and/or red, or as Blacks relative to light skinned 'red' Eurasian, because Africans tend to be dark, and Eurasian tend to be light.

Asians tend to have both intermediate colors and tend to vary from as dark as most Africans to as light as most Europeans.

So it never made sense for them to define themselves in terms of color.

I've had a variation of this conversation with almost every member of this forum, so I will repeat....

Ethnonyms, whether based on color or anything else are just subjective social labels.


They are not universal, nor are they internally consistent, nor scientific in any way.

Any attempt to objectify them will fail.

This goes for terms like Black, or Jew, or Oriental, or Blonde, or Semite, or Hispanic, or Arab.....all subjective social labels.

I am not aware of any group of Asians who call themselves classic Mongoloids.

In and English context the word is ugly - it describes a disease.

This term was invented by white racists.

Dr. Winters world-view was invented by white racists...he simply tries to modify it, or at worst, reverse it.

In my opinion this means and intelligent man is wasting his time with a foolish act, but hey...he's the "Doctor", so.....
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ I couldn't put it any better!
 

---

Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
rasol wrote:

quote:

---

Africans define themselves black and/or red, or as Blacks relative to light skinned 'red' Eurasian, because Africans tend to be dark, and Eurasian tend to be light.

---

quote:

---

As for skin color - the reason that most East Asians do not typically define themselves ethnically in terms of skin color is because it varies too much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argyle104:
rasol wrote:
There are plenty of Africans that don't identify themselves by a color.

---

quote:

---

You need to get out of South Africa

---

quote:

---

Arygle's retardation rants: Now watch him scream like a bitch.

---

quote:

---

LooooL

---

^ Yes it's funny how stupid, vulgar and juvenile you are. On this pont we agree.

Anyway, you got the two seconds worth of attention your childish mind craves... ... happy now?
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ I couldn't put it any better!

---

-> 'just got bored with ignoring the nonsense. After awhile it's easier to just correct it.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Here is the reason why the bio history of humans in Asia is so debated:

quote:

---

The fossil record for the EMHs in eastern Eurasia is widely scattered, fragmentary, and frequently poorly dated. The oldest modern human remains may well be the juvenile cranium from Niah Cave, Sarawak, dated to ≈45–39 ka cal BP (calendrical years before present) by direct U-series and associated radiocarbon dates (4). Although morphologically modern, it appears to have close affinities with Late Pleistocene Chinese and recent Australomelanesian populations (3, 5). The next oldest east Asian modern human remains are the juvenile femur and tibia from Yamashita-cho, Okinawa associated with a 14C date of ≈32 ka radiocarbon years before present (14C BP); although attributable to modern humans based on the incipient development of a femoral pilaster, the remains are otherwise undiagnostic and similar to Late Pleistocene juvenile femora and tibiae generally (6, 7). Of a similar age are the fragmentary commingled remains from Fa Hein, Sri Lanka dated to ≈30 ka 14C BP, for which only the dentition has been described (8, 9).

These Asian EMHs, dated to ≥30 ka 14C BP, are joined by the fragmentary Batadomba lena remains from Sri Lanka dated to ≈29 ka 14C BP (10) and the partial skeleton from Moh Khiew, Thailand dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP (11). Further north and east, subsequent samples, such as the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave remains from China dated to 24–29 ka 14C BP, the Pinza-Abu fragments from Okinawa dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP, and the Minatogawa sample from Okinawa dated to ≈18 ka 14C BP (12–14), postdate the appearance of morphologically modern humans in the region.

There are other probably Late Pleistocene human remains from China. However, the association of the Salawusu human bones with well dated but substantially older geological deposits is currently debated (15). Ziyang 1 may be associated with fauna 14C dated to 32–44 ka 14C BP (3, 16), and the southern Chinese Liujiang fossil may predate 60 ka BP, but questions remain as to its original context (17).

It is therefore apparent that the chronology and biology of the earliest modern humans in eastern Eurasia is currently poorly known, from the scarcity and fragmentary nature of the remains and/or uncertainties regarding the geological antiquity of the more complete specimens. It is in this context that the Tianyuan Cave partial skeleton acquires significance.

---

From: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1871827

There aren't many remains of any anatomically modern humans from > 50ky in East Asia to really study. Given this fact, much of what we have about East Asian populations in that remote time period is based on genetic distances of modern populations. This lack of evidence is also the reason for many of the claims that East Asians developed from different species of early hominids because of the discovery of hominid remains in East Asia.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
First of all the original migrants out of Africa had different features than the contemporary Africans.

Here is an Australian




Here is a contemporary Africans



You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.

Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\


Fijians




Australians




A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.


The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].

The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.

There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].

The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.

Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.


References
1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.

2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.

3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.

4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.

5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).

6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76

7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.

8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.

9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.

10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.

11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.

12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).

13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.


.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.

---

Where are your references to these skeletons? And why does that present a "special" case of recent African migrations to Asia? Aren't the skeletons of Papuans, Australian and other South East Asian aboriginal populations ALSO negroid? So if these people with so-called negroid features have ALWAYS been in Asia, then what is the point of claiming that such features are NEW to the region?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.


.

---

Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous, not only because of nonsensical terminology but because the basic fact is that blacks were the predominant population in South East Asia and the Pacific up until relatively recent times (last 500 years). So no RECENT arrival of blacks is necessary to explain the presence of blacks there because they have ALWAYS been there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Here is the reason why the bio history of humans in Asia is so debated:

quote:

---

The fossil record for the EMHs in eastern Eurasia is widely scattered, fragmentary, and frequently poorly dated. The oldest modern human remains may well be the juvenile cranium from Niah Cave, Sarawak, dated to ≈45–39 ka cal BP (calendrical years before present) by direct U-series and associated radiocarbon dates (4). Although morphologically modern, it appears to have close affinities with Late Pleistocene Chinese and recent Australomelanesian populations (3, 5). The next oldest east Asian modern human remains are the juvenile femur and tibia from Yamashita-cho, Okinawa associated with a 14C date of ≈32 ka radiocarbon years before present (14C BP); although attributable to modern humans based on the incipient development of a femoral pilaster, the remains are otherwise undiagnostic and similar to Late Pleistocene juvenile femora and tibiae generally (6, 7). Of a similar age are the fragmentary commingled remains from Fa Hein, Sri Lanka dated to ≈30 ka 14C BP, for which only the dentition has been described (8, 9).

These Asian EMHs, dated to ≥30 ka 14C BP, are joined by the fragmentary Batadomba lena remains from Sri Lanka dated to ≈29 ka 14C BP (10) and the partial skeleton from Moh Khiew, Thailand dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP (11). Further north and east, subsequent samples, such as the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave remains from China dated to 24–29 ka 14C BP, the Pinza-Abu fragments from Okinawa dated to ≈26 ka 14C BP, and the Minatogawa sample from Okinawa dated to ≈18 ka 14C BP (12–14), postdate the appearance of morphologically modern humans in the region.

There are other probably Late Pleistocene human remains from China. However, the association of the Salawusu human bones with well dated but substantially older geological deposits is currently debated (15). Ziyang 1 may be associated with fauna 14C dated to 32–44 ka 14C BP (3, 16), and the southern Chinese Liujiang fossil may predate 60 ka BP, but questions remain as to its original context (17).

It is therefore apparent that the chronology and biology of the earliest modern humans in eastern Eurasia is currently poorly known, from the scarcity and fragmentary nature of the remains and/or uncertainties regarding the geological antiquity of the more complete specimens. It is in this context that the Tianyuan Cave partial skeleton acquires significance.

---

From: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1871827

There aren't many remains of any anatomically modern humans from > 50ky in East Asia to really study. Given this fact, much of what we have about East Asian populations in that remote time period is based on genetic distances of modern populations. This lack of evidence is also the reason for many of the claims that East Asians developed from different species of early hominids because of the discovery of hominid remains in East Asia.

---

quote:

---

The available eastern Eurasian EMHs from the sites of Batadomba lena, Moh Khiew, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, and Minatogawa date to between ≈28 and ≈18 ka 14C BP. To provide a broader Late Pleistocene framework, they are compared with four western Old World samples (Asian, European, and north African): (i) late archaic humans (Neandertals); (ii) MPMHs from Haua Fteah, Qafzeh and Skhul; (iii) EMHs dated to between ≈29 and 37 ka 14C BP, and (iv) MUP (≈20 to ≈28 ka 14C BP) modern humans. Few of the traits of comparison used are derived for the Neandertals (44), and therefore the Neandertals should represent late archaic Homo generally for the purposes here; such assessments need to be reevaluated when adequate late archaic eastern Eurasian remains are known.

web page

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
First of all the original migrants out of Africa had different features than the contemporary Africans.

Here is an Australian




Here is a contemporary Africans



You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.

Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\


Fijians




Australians

quote:

---

A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.

---

no, they do have some cucasoid feautres like the long hair and also they are too broad to resemble to even the Pygmies.


The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].

The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.

There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].

The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.

Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.


References
1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.

2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.

3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.

4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.

5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).

6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76

7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.

8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.

9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.

10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.

11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.

12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).

13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.


.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.

---

Where are your references to these skeletons? And why does that present a "special" case of recent African migrations to Asia? Aren't the skeletons of Papuans, Australian and other South East Asian aboriginal populations ALSO negroid? So if these people with so-called negroid features have ALWAYS been in Asia, then what is the point of claiming that such features are NEW to the region?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.


.

---

Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous, not only because of nonsensical terminology but because the basic fact is that blacks were the predominant population in South East Asia and the Pacific up until relatively recent times (last 500 years). So no RECENT arrival of blacks is necessary to explain the presence of blacks there because they have ALWAYS been there.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
First of all the original migrants out of Africa had different features than the contemporary Africans.

---

^ Your puzzlement gets close to the core of the essential failing of your anti-evolutionary, and racial view of human origins.

Why would you expect 80 thousand year old ancestral remains to look *exactly* like any *singular* modern ethnic group?

Ancient human ancestors vary in appearance.

Their modern descendants vary in appearance.

Descendants vary with respect to their ancestors.

Your problem is that you *refuse to grasp the reality* that the FIXED RACIAL ARCHTYPES you advocate do not exist as material reality.

They are reifications - intellectual abstractions - imposed upon a reality that has no obligation to so constrict itself.

Here is a reconstruction of the earliest known human [homo sapien] from Ethiopia:



The differences described above are hugely significant because they echo features seen in some older African hominid fossils, such as Homo heidelbergensis, whilst at the same time displaying a very modern look we would recognise today. In essence, the researchers argue, the Herto skulls fill a gap between the more archaic humans who went before and the very modern people who came after. The Herto people could be our direct and immediate ancestors.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2981756.stm
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.

---

Simple yes, accurate no.

All you did was pick and choose your examples to support your preconceived notions.

But I can easily pick other examples which completely contradict the above.

Contemporary Africans:


Contemporay Tibitan:


Now I will teach you, if you will permit, something about the implications of your own rhetoric.

The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.

^ It helped them to evade the reality that all kinds of people could be called negroes, even where the appelation were ideologically undesirable.

Same goes for mongoloid.

These are reiffied abstractions, not actual divisions [or clades] of humanity.

The qualifier's 'true and classical' are simply built-in double talk, that allows you to either assert or deny your racial archtypes at will.

And this in turn is why pseudo-scholars [dienekes for example] love race-tautology, because they can use it to claim whatever they want.

Here then is what you've proven Dr. Winters with your "Short history of Negroid and Mongoloid":

terms like negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid are worse than useless. - CL Brace.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

There is no real controversy surrounding the skeletons of East Asians. The oldest skeletons show individuals related to the Aborigine type.

The Chinese try to surround these skeletons with controversy because they have nothing to do with the Han, they are of various Negroes.

---

^ ^ anti-evoultionary, race anthropology = circular argument.......

SHORT HISTORY OF CAUCASOID, NEGROID AND MONGOLOID......

....."negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid caucas...."
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
you forgot the Arabs, who migrated outside of Africa via Y Haplogroup F.

---

I have not discussed the Arabs because the Levant and Saudi Arabs have different backgrounds. The Levant Arabs are mainly the descendants of the Gutian mountain tribes.

The Saudi Arabs are the result of the mixing of Blacks and Indo-European speaking Sea People since 1100 BC.


.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Just like Black and white people don't look alike the same can be said for Asians.

When I was at University in the 1970's on registration day at the U of I we would be registering students for the various student Associations. Some of my Asian friends felt uncomfrotable asking people in they were Chinese or Japanese. I belonged to the Black student organization and these students would ask me to tell them which was which. I was quite accurate with around a 87% success rate.

You purposely used a photograph of a South African and Tibetan. These two photos tell us nothing about Asian and African types.

First of all South African Blacks are very mixed. Here you find people who have ancestors that are of bushman and bantu origin. You are from South Africa and you know full well that this women is a bushman or San and not a Bantu.




Hottentot




As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.

Venus Figurines



The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.



Rasol you are such a dishonest person. If you continue to do things like this I may lose more respect for you. I had believed that you said things out of ignorance. Now, I clearly see that like the closet Eurocentrists you are you will go to any means to hide the truth from African people shame on you.


The Tibetan area is the entrance from East Asia into India. Here you find people who are the descendants of various nationalities who have used this pathway to enter India and vise versa.


Note the Chinese and Mongolian types among these Tibetan women



The photos you publish do not in anyway dispute the facts.

I use the term classical mongoloid to make it clear that differences exist between Han/Hau people and the majority of People living in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands who have been classified as classical mongoloids.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.

---

Simple yes, accurate no.

All you did was pick and choose your examples to support your preconceived notions.

But I can easily pick other examples which completely contradict the above.

Contemporary Africans:


Contemporay Tibitan:


Now I will teach you, if you will permit, something about the implications of your own rhetoric.

The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.

^ It helped them to evade the reality that all kinds of people could be called negroes, even where the appelation were ideologically undesirable.

Same goes for mongoloid.

These are reiffied abstractions, not actual divisions [or clades] of humanity.

The qualifier's 'true and classical' are simply built-in double talk, that allows you to either assert or deny your racial archtypes at will.

And this in turn is why pseudo-scholars [dienekes for example] love race-tautology, because they can use it to claim whatever they want.

Here then is what you've proven Dr. Winters with your "Short history of Negroid and Mongoloid":

terms like negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid are worse than useless. - CL Brace.

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
All Asians do not look alike. Note the diffences between Han/Hau people and Classical Mongoloid people.


Han/Hau



Classical Mongoloids




I use the term classical mongoloid to make it clear that differences exist between Han/Hau people and the majority of People living in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands who have been classified as classical mongoloids.


.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Mr. Winters, you have been shown to not have any credibility whatsoever. The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term, especially given that there are Mongolians and North Asians who have DARK skin and features that are NOT "classic Mongoloid" (high cheek bones, long faces, narrow slanted eyes). Then to ridicule yourself further you then backtrack and say that all Asians have variation but that the kids above are "classic mongoloid". In fact, YOU don't even know what classic Mongoloid means. This is obvious from your own contradictions, where you put round eyed Filipino children into the category of "mongoloid", which is nothing more than a form of TRUE Asian, which again contradicts what you said about variation in the first place. Your fumbling reveals the absurdity of your logic. All Asians do not have high cheekbones, white skin, flat faces, small noses, thin lips, thin slanted eyes and long faces. Across Asia there is a VARIETY of features among various Asian groups, which means that there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with. Therefore, given this fact of natural diversity, it is impossible to claim that modern Asian features are descended from a SINGLE tribe of "true" Asians from central Asia. ALL Asians descend from the original blacks who left Africa and populated Asia. The features you see are the result of natural differentiation among these original black populations.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I am very angrey that more is not written about the history of the Classical mongoloid people. Once I discovered that the Austro-Asiatic languages were related to Sumerian and they probably founded Catal Huyuk and the Shang-Anyang empire; I recognized that we need to know about the history of these people.

Right now they make it appear that the Chinese were the only civilizers of Asia this is false much of their civilization is based on the technology and writing they took from the Afro-Dravidian and Classical mongoloids who once dominated the area.

I hope that once DJ stops being ashamed of his "brown-ness" he will illuminate this great history for his people. DJ is Marc and I's personal troll--but on other forms he shows great intelligence. I know that given the breath of his literature base he can do the job.


.

I may not live to see it but I believe oneday DJ will make his people proud and show the world the great history of his people.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
LOL! You are angry because nobody else believes in your phony race typing! Why not take a hint? There are TONS of books on the history of Asia and the Philippines written by Asians. If they DON'T talk about "classic Mongoloids" maybe it is because such a thing DOES NOT EXIST. Shouldn't THEY know themselves and their history enough to know better? Surely you aren't saying that these books lack illumination of Asian history because they don't follow your fake RACE TYPES that never existed before they came out of your mouth? Yeah they sure better go back and start putting "classic Mongoloid" into those texts so that Mr. Winters can claim that Asian history has properly been illuminated. That is absurdly retarded.

If I was an Asian I would take your statement as an insult.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Mr. Winters, you have been shown to not have any credibility whatsoever. The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term, especially given that there are Mongolians and North Asians who have DARK skin and features that are NOT "classic Mongoloid" (high cheek bones, long faces, narrow slanted eyes). Then to ridicule yourself further you then backtrack and say that all Asians have variation but that the kids above are "classic mongoloid". In fact, YOU don't even know what classic Mongoloid means. This is obvious from your own contradictions, where you put round eyed Filipino children into the category of "mongoloid", which is nothing more than a form of TRUE Asian, which again contradicts what you said about variation in the first place. Your fumbling reveals the absurdity of your logic. All Asians do not have high cheekbones, white skin, flat faces, small noses, thin lips, thin slanted eyes and long faces. Across Asia there is a VARIETY of features among various Asian groups, which means that there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with. Therefore, given this fact of natural diversity, it is impossible to claim that modern Asian features are descended from a SINGLE tribe of "true" Asians from central Asia. ALL Asians descend from the original blacks who left Africa and populated Asia. The features you see are the result of natural differentiation among these original black populations.

---

This debate has nothing to do with trying to find the true "Asia". It is just an acknowledgement that there are two main divisions of East Asians: Han/Hua and Classical Mongoloid. If you don't acknowledge this fact how can you truthfully write an ancient history of the world and its people?


You are really hung up on this dark color thing. If color was solely depended on ancestry and even environment the Bushman would be darker than Classical mongoloid people.


Han/Hau



Classical Mongoloids



Above we see Han and Classical Mongoloid people. The later is darker than the former. There was no Ice Age in China. Mr. Expert explain why these populations have different color schemes when you claim that they are the descendants of the first African migrants to settle Eastern Eurasia.


Doug your mind is so controlled by Eurocentric thinking that you won't dare think for yourself. You believe that if you deny racial difference you can ignore the reality of differences that exist between racial groups, who may in turn be classified into one of three major macroracial categories; negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

Think for yourself. Stop being afraid to write what you believe based on the facts, instead of writing only what your European Masters have agreed upon.

If DuBois, JA Rogers and Carter G. Woodson, had been as cowardly as you, we would know nothing about the history of African people. I would rather stand on the shoulders of brave scholarly warriors like JA Rogers, than weakly repeat the messages given you by the established European masters you obey. These Europeans care little about our history and distort history facts, to support the status quo and deny we existed as founders of many Ancient civilizations.

The statement you can be black , but not African is a ruse used by scholars to distort the past in such a way as to make certain "Blacks", white, like when they write about the "black-skinned-white Egyptians. Shame on you.

.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
LOL! You are angry because nobody else believes in your phony race typing! Why not take a hint? There are TONS of books on the history of Asia and the Philippines written by Asians. If they DON'T talk about "classic Mongoloids" maybe it is because such a thing DOES NOT EXIST. Shouldn't THEY know themselves and their history enough to know better? Surely you aren't saying that these books lack illumination of Asian history because they don't follow your fake RACE TYPES that never existed before they came out of your mouth? Yeah they sure better go back and start putting "classic Mongoloid" into those texts so that Mr. Winters can claim that Asian history has properly been illuminated. That is absurdly retarded.

If I was an Asian I would take your statement as an insult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Mr. Winters, you have been shown to not have any credibility whatsoever. The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term, especially given that there are Mongolians and North Asians who have DARK skin and features that are NOT "classic Mongoloid" (high cheek bones, long faces, narrow slanted eyes). Then to ridicule yourself further you then backtrack and say that all Asians have variation but that the kids above are "classic mongoloid". In fact, YOU don't even know what classic Mongoloid means. This is obvious from your own contradictions, where you put round eyed Filipino children into the category of "mongoloid", which is nothing more than a form of TRUE Asian, which again contradicts what you said about variation in the first place. Your fumbling reveals the absurdity of your logic. All Asians do not have high cheekbones, white skin, flat faces, small noses, thin lips, thin slanted eyes and long faces. Across Asia there is a VARIETY of features among various Asian groups, which means that there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with. Therefore, given this fact of natural diversity, it is impossible to claim that modern Asian features are descended from a SINGLE tribe of "true" Asians from central Asia. ALL Asians descend from the original blacks who left Africa and populated Asia. The features you see are the result of natural differentiation among these original black populations.

---

This debate has nothing to do with trying to find the true "Asia". It is just an acknowledgement that there are two main divisions of East Asians: Han/Hua and Classical Mongoloid. If you don't acknowledge this fact how can you truthfully write an ancient history of the world and its people?


You are really hung up on this dark color thing. If color was solely depended on ancestry and even environment the Bushman would be darker than Classical mongoloid people.


Han/Hau



Classical Mongoloids



Above we see Han and Classical Mongoloid people. The later is darker than the former. There was no Ice Age in China. Mr. Expert explain why these populations have different color schemes when you claim that they are the descendants of the first African migrants to settle Eastern Eurasia.


Doug your mind is so controlled by Eurocentric thinking that you won't dare think for yourself. You believe that if you deny racial difference you can ignore the reality of differences that exist between racial groups, who may in turn be classified into one of three major macroracial categories; negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

Think for yourself. Stop being afraid to write what you believe based on the facts, instead of writing only what your European Masters have agreed upon.

If DuBois, JA Rogers and Carter G. Woodson, had been as cowardly as you, we would know nothing about the history of African people. I would rather stand on the shoulders of brave scholarly warriors like JA Rogers, than weakly repeat the messages given you by the established European masters you obey. These Europeans care little about our history and distort history facts, to support the status quo and deny we existed as founders of many Ancient civilizations.

The statement you can be black , but not African is a ruse used by scholars to distort the past in such a way as to make certain "Blacks", white, like when they write about the "black-skinned-white Egyptians. Shame on you.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Just like Black and white people don't look alike the same can be said for Asians.

---

quote:

---

You purposely used a photograph of a South African and Tibetan.

---

quote:

---

First of all South African Blacks are very mixed.

---

quote:

---

... the classical Mongoloid cranial morphology appeared in northeastern
Asia, either as a local response to extreme environmental conditions, or
as the product of a migration from northern Europe, ...

Walter A. Neves et al
A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World
Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 48, Issue 4, April 2005, Pages 403-414

-----

... the Mongoloid group, in which the Chinese are classified as central or
classical Mongoloid ...

Sood Sangvichien
Neolithic Skeletons from Ban Kao, Thailand, and the Problem of Thai Origins
Current Anthropology, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 234-235

-----

... the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent
pattern and other features) evolved in Asia.

Bruce Trigger, Wilcomb E. Washburn, Richard E. W. Adams
The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas
Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 197

-----

... the classical Mongoloid. facial morphology originated in Asia.

Alexander G. Kozintsev et al
Collateral relatives of American Indians among the Bronze Age populations of Siberia?
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 108, Issue 2 , Pages 193 - 204

---

quote:

---

It's comments like those, that draw me away from other
Asians. I am filipino/black, born in Manila, having a black
father (My grandfather on my dads side actually fought in
WWII in the philippines, thats right he was a BUFFALO
SOLDIER! Bob Marley was right!) and filipina mother. When
I moved to America at the age of 2 i had no knowledge of my
filipino heritage, but now i know it something to be proud of,
i didnt realize how beautiful filipino were, with their passion for
living, and great culture. I didnt realize how beautiful the
islands were and how truly blessed they were by God. How
can anyone honestly say Filipinos have nothing to be proud
of? I am not gonna sit here and even argue that because it
would take all day. Even when i was a kid, i was never
accepted by other asians (chinese, koreans you name it) but
when i went to the philippines, i felt nothing but warmth and
love. These people really love to accept others and make them
feel at home, and they are my people! Give thanks and
Praises...

buffalo soldier Tuesday, December 24, 2002 at 12:17:14 (PST)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I would not side with the extreme notion that classical Mongoloid is a term soley of his
use.

---

quote:

---

rasol: The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.

---

^ The terms origin here is attributed to Eurocentrists, not *soley to Dr. Winters*.

My position is that Winters race-anthropology parrots Eurocentrism and originates nothing.


Now, *this*, you may refute, if you like.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ As for the Eurocentric uses of the term.....


... the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent
pattern and other features) evolved in Asia.-
Bruce Trigger,


^ As with true negro, the term classical Mongoloid is arbitrary, has no consistent use, and is internally contradictory when specifics are demanded.

Trigger specifies dental trait, Sinodontry, although this was not the base for earlier uses of the term.

Very well then, lets examine sinodontry, as the indicator of 'true' mongoloid....

Dental morphology of the Dawenkou Neolithic population in North China: implications for the origin and distribution of Sinodonty

Yoshitaka Manabe, , a, Joichi Oyamada, a, Yoshikazu Kitagawa, a, Atsushi Rokutanda, a, Katsutomo Kato, b and Takayuki Matsushita

We compare the incidence of 25 nonmetric dental traits of the people of the Neolithic Dawenkou culture (6300–4500 BP) sites in Shandong Province, North China with those of other East Asian populations. The Dawenkou teeth had an overwhelmingly greater resemblance to the Sinodont pattern typical of Northeast Asia than to the Sundadont pattern typical of Southeast Asia. Multidimensional scaling using Smith's mean measure of divergence (MMD) statistic place the Dawenkou sample near the Amur and the North China–Mongolia populations in the area of the plot indicating typical Sinodonty. The existence of the Sinodont population in Neolithic North China suggests a possible continuity of Sinodonty from the Upper Cave population at Zhoukoudian (about 34,000–10,000 BP) to the modern North Chinese.

Note carefully the referenced population, the Sinodonts of Upper Cave Zhoukoudian, about which Chris Stringer, in "African Exodus" says the following....

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China

^ Ancient Paleolithic Asian also *do not conform* to race archtypes.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Rasol

Do you think you're the only one who's addressed
the classical Mongoloid term in this thread?

Nothing to refute there except Dr. Winters is an
Afrocentric using the tools of a bygone anthropology
that still informs the population geneticists of today.

Most importantly my input is not a strawman arguement
because I'm contributing my views in a discussion
not attempting to win a debate. There is a difference
and a major one at that.

Follow the below closely and to its end otherwise
it's full portent will be lost. Little of value is
short and sweet.

quote:

---

The point was made that "classical Mongoloid" is a meaningless term,
. . . .
there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with.

---

quote:

---

There are TONS of books on the history of Asia and the Philippines written by Asians.
If they DON'T talk about "classic Mongoloids" maybe it is because such a thing DOES NOT EXIST.

---

quote:

---

Mongoloid means MONGOLIAN and most Asians are NOT MONGOLIANS.

---

quote:

---

Mongoloid describes a race typology no longer in technical use

---

quote:

---

I am not aware of any group of Asians who call themselves classic Mongoloids.

---

quote:

---

In and English context the word is ugly - it describes a disease.

This term was invented by white racists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Accurate information, but services a strawman argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
I would not side with the extreme notion that classical Mongoloid is a term soley of his
use.

---

^ Be careful, that is a misinterpretation of what was said, which was....

quote:

---

rasol: The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.

---

^ The terms origin here is attributed to Eurocentrists, not *soley to Dr. Winters*.

My position is that Winters race-anthropology parrots Eurocentrism and originates nothing.


Now, *this*, you may refute, if you like.

---

quote:

---

al~Takruri wrote:

The "triumvirate" classification is also not good because people live
in other places than just Africa, Asia, and Europe. Such people are
neither ethiopoid, mongoloid, or caucasoid. Nor are all Africans
ethiopoid, all Asians mongoloid, or all Europeans caucasoid.

Wisely we try to avoid that kind of terminology here because we
see the mess any variant of it will eventually lead. However, it's
too bad for us that the field continues to use these outmoded
terminologies while on the other hand occasionally condemning
them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ As for the Eurocentric uses of the term.....


... the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent
pattern and other features) evolved in Asia.-
Bruce Trigger,


^ As with true negro, the term classical Mongoloid is arbitrary, has no consistent use, and is internally contradictory when specifics are demanded.

Trigger specifies dental trait, Sinodontry, although this was not the base for earlier uses of the term.

Very well then, lets examine sinodontry, as the indicator of 'true' mongoloid....

Dental morphology of the Dawenkou Neolithic population in North China: implications for the origin and distribution of Sinodonty

Yoshitaka Manabe, , a, Joichi Oyamada, a, Yoshikazu Kitagawa, a, Atsushi Rokutanda, a, Katsutomo Kato, b and Takayuki Matsushita

We compare the incidence of 25 nonmetric dental traits of the people of the Neolithic Dawenkou culture (6300–4500 BP) sites in Shandong Province, North China with those of other East Asian populations. The Dawenkou teeth had an overwhelmingly greater resemblance to the Sinodont pattern typical of Northeast Asia than to the Sundadont pattern typical of Southeast Asia. Multidimensional scaling using Smith's mean measure of divergence (MMD) statistic place the Dawenkou sample near the Amur and the North China–Mongolia populations in the area of the plot indicating typical Sinodonty. The existence of the Sinodont population in Neolithic North China suggests a possible continuity of Sinodonty from the Upper Cave population at Zhoukoudian (about 34,000–10,000 BP) to the modern North Chinese.

Note carefully the referenced population, the Sinodonts of Upper Cave Zhoukoudian, about which Chris Stringer, in "African Exodus" says the following....

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China

^ Ancient Paleolithic Asian also *do not conform* to race archtypes.

---

quote:

---

Wouldn't we expect Zhoukoudian cave folk of that epic to have features in common with African and Australian folk, such as the migrants who preceded and were ancestral to them must have had, along with the newly emerging northeast Asian type of physiognomy?

---

quote:

---

Doug writes: Your fumbling reveals the absurdity of your logic. All Asians do not have high cheekbones, white skin, flat faces, small noses, thin lips, thin slanted eyes and long faces. Across Asia there is a VARIETY of features among various Asian groups, which means that there is no "classic Mongoloid" meaning TRUE ASIAN or TYPICAL ASIAN type to begin with. Therefore, given this fact of natural diversity, it is impossible to claim that modern Asian features are descended from a SINGLE tribe of "true" Asians from central Asia. ALL Asians descend from the original blacks who left Africa and populated Asia. The features you see are the result of natural differentiation among these original black populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
re: The existence of the Sinodont population in Neolithic North China suggests a possible continuity of Sinodonty from the Upper Cave population at Zhoukoudian (about 34,000–10,000 BP) to the modern North Chinese.

quote:

---

Wouldn't we expect Zhoukoudian cave folk of that epic to have features in common with African and Australian folk, such as the migrants who preceded and were ancestral to them must have had, along with the newly emerging northeast Asian type of physiognomy?

---

Yes, that's exactly what I expect, and that's what Chris Stringer expects, ala African exodus.... It is and evolutionary model of phenotype.

But that is *not* what Dr. Winters expects, via his non evolutionary race-typology ideology:

The oldest skeletons show individuals related to the Aborigine type......they are of various Negroes.....they have *nothing to do* with Han [Chinese].

^ Dr. Winters is so, disconfirmed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
All Asians do not look alike. Note the diffences between Han/Hau people and Classical Mongoloid people.


Han/Hau



Classical Mongoloids




I use the term classical mongoloid to make it clear that differences exist between Han/Hau people and the majority of People living in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands who have been classified as classical mongoloids.


.

---

quote:

---

You make a funny. How can I be disconfirmed when the author you mention admit that the original East Asian skeletons were of the Australian type.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Rasol there is no neat evolutionary model for East Asians.

---

quote:

---

A neat evolutionary model would have the Australians evolving into Han and Classical Mongoloid people. But this is not the case.

---

^ This is another non-sequitur remark.

There are no -Australians- in Ancient China.

Classical Mongoloid is a nonsense term.


You just argue in circles and go nowhere, as usual...


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ As for the Eurocentric uses of the term.....


... the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent
pattern and other features) evolved in Asia.-
Bruce Trigger,

.

Trigger specifies dental trait, Sinodontry, although this was not the base for earlier uses of the term.

Very well then, lets examine sinodontry, as the indicator of 'true' mongoloid....

Dental morphology of the Dawenkou Neolithic population in North China: implications for the origin and distribution of Sinodonty

Yoshitaka Manabe, , a, Joichi Oyamada, a, Yoshikazu Kitagawa, a, Atsushi Rokutanda, a, Katsutomo Kato, b and Takayuki Matsushita

We compare the incidence of 25 nonmetric dental traits of the people of the Neolithic Dawenkou culture (6300–4500 BP) sites in Shandong Province, North China with those of other East Asian populations. The Dawenkou teeth had an overwhelmingly greater resemblance to the Sinodont pattern typical of Northeast Asia than to the Sundadont pattern typical of Southeast Asia. Multidimensional scaling using Smith's mean measure of divergence (MMD) statistic place the Dawenkou sample near the Amur and the North China–Mongolia populations in the area of the plot indicating typical Sinodonty. The existence of the Sinodont population in Neolithic North China suggests a possible continuity of Sinodonty from the Upper Cave population at Zhoukoudian (about 34,000–10,000 BP) to the modern North Chinese.

Note carefully the referenced population, the Sinodonts of Upper Cave Zhoukoudian, about which Chris Stringer, in "African Exodus" says the following....

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China

^ Ancient Paleolithic Asian also *do not conform* to race archtypes.

---

As usual you don't have clue what you're writing about. The Dawenkou and Zhoukoudian people were all negroes not mongoloid people as you assume.



Rasol's Favorite Position as he argues without any knowledge at all....


.
The African type can be traced to the African
type that lived in China. This Negro type was characterized by
sindonty. The earliest examples of sindonty date back to the
Choukoudian/Zhoudian Upper Cave type not the sundonty pattern which
arrived in the Pacific with the classical mongoloid people found in
Indonesia. This classical mongoloids entered Southeast Asia and the
Pacific after African speaking Manding and Dravidian speaking people
had already settled much of the Pacific. This is supported by the
Sindonty pattern found among the Japanese who have a Dravidian and
African substratum in their language.

Secondly, archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were
very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist.
Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls
from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien, was of a
Oceanic Negroid/Melanesoid " (p.163).

These blacks were the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih
Chang,writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China
(1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period
the population in North China and that in the southwest and in
Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as
Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively…."(p.64). By the
Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang
skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69).

Many researchers believe that the Yi of Southern China were the
ancestors of the Polynesian and Melanesian people.

Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese
history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan,
Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of
Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases
( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University
Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often
referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China. The
presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear
that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The
Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated
with the Xia civilization.

The founder of the Xia civilization was Yu. The Great Yu was the
regulator of the waters and the builder of canals. He is also alleged
to be the inventor of wetfield adriculture. Wolfram Eberhard, in The
Local culture of South and East China (Leiden,1968), maintained that
Yu came from the south and established the Xia dynasty in Shansi.

Archaeological evidence supports this view. The foreunner of the Xia
civilization was the Lung-shan (Longshan) culture. The Taosi ruins ,
a Longshan between the Fenhe and Chongshan ranges is considered a
middle and late Xia period site. Another important Longshanoid site
is Qingliangang. The Qingliangang culture is a decendant of the
Hemudu culture and dates to the fifth millennium B.C.(K.C.
Chang, "In search of China's beginnings new light on an old
civilization", American Scientist, 69 (1981) pp.148-160:154).

The oldest neolithic culture in China is the Hemudu culture in
northern Zhejiang province. This culture group had incised and
cord-impressed pottery, rice and domesticated water buffalo, dog and
pig (Chang, 1981: p.152). The Hemudu pottery is reminiscent of
pottery found along the coastal areas of southeastern China and
Taiwan (Chang, 1981: p.154). This indicates that southern Chinese,
who were predominantly Black early settled those parts of China
associated with the Xia and Shang civilizations.

In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung,
Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the
Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang.
The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang
Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result
this dynasty is called Shang-Yin. The Yin or Oceanic Mongoloid type
is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang,
"Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in
South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). The
Austronesian or Oceanic Mongoloid type were called Yin, Feng, Yen,
Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.

During the Anyang-Shang period, the Qiang lived in Ch'iang Fang, a
country to the west of Yin-Shang . The Qiang people were often
referred to as the Ta Qiang "many Qiang", they were used as
agricultural workers, and used in Yin-Shang ancestral rites as
sacrifice victims.

In Southeast Asia and southern China, ancient skeletal remains
represented the earliest inhabitants as identical to the Oceanic type
( Kwang-chih Chang, The archareology of ancient China, (New
Haven,1977) p.42; G.H.R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid
from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum
of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp.301-309). Although Negritos were
also established in north and southern China by the beginning of the
Recent (Holocene) period the populations in North China and that in
southern China and IndoChina had become sufficiently differentiated
to be designated as Mongoloid and Negroid-Oceanic respectively, both
having evolved out of a common Upper Plestocene substratum as
represented by the Tzu-yang and Liu-Chiang skulls.

In addition to Oceanic Blacks in Southeast Asia and southern China
shortly before the Christian era Africoids of the Mediterranean type
entered these areas by way of India. Much of the archaeology in
southern China is related to the Southeast Asian patterns, with
numerous finds of chipped stone of the type found in
Szechewan,Kwangsi .Yunan and in the western part of Kwangtung as far
as the Pearl River delta.( Chang, 1977, p.76. ) Neolithic culture of
southern China as the people were parallel to southeastern
development. It seems from the evidence that in China there were
several major areas where the Neolithic way of life characterized by
farming for food, use of pottery and the making of stone instruments.

In Southern China the most well known early cultures were the
Ta-p'enK'eng culture of the southeastern coast, cultures dating to
the 5th millenium. The Ta-p'en-K'eng sites have a chracteristic
cord-marked pottery dating to before theird millennium. A radio-
carbon date is available for this culture of 4450-4350 BC. The color
of the pottery ranges from buff to dark brown, the principal shapes
of the vessels are large globular jars and bowls. The people of this
culture also made many stone sinkers and dugout canoes.There is
believed to have been an early horticultural revolution in the
tropical regions of southeast Asia, with the domestication of
several cultigens. As in Africa this culture was Aqualithic with
most of the people living on mounds and pilled houses. These
horticulturalist ate aqualtic animals such as fish and shellfish,
and grew root crops such as yam and taro .The Ta-p'en-K'eng site has
provided much insight into their agricultural origins as indicated
by the great variety of cord marks on the pottery demonstrates. The
habi tat of the ancient people who made this ware at Ta-p'en-K' eng,
was widespread in IndoChina and even in southern China and Japan.
The Hoabinhian culture of Vietnam and that of Ta-p' en-K'eng, were
characterized by cord-marked pottery which is identical in both
places , and it is possible that the Yang -shao site at Huang Ho
basin in North China may have also been founded by blacks in
southern China who probably been the cultivation of rice
. In the southeast southerners began at Hupeh and Kuangsi the
cultivation of means of artificial irrigation and by terracing of the
mountain slopes. These same Austronesians were already using bronze
before the Chinese. The women's standing was high, she participated
in the worship which consisted of a mountain and snake cults.There is
evidence from the physical anthropologist that skeletons from
Shantung and Kiangsu show resemblances to the Negroid type of
southern Chinese rather than Mongoloid, especially at the intial
Ch'ing-lien -Kang and Ma chia-pang phases. As a result of this
evidence it seems that agriculture was widely practiced in Southeast
Asia and China long before the full impact of farming was felt in
the North among the Chinese.

Neolithic technology in south China is typified by hunting with the
bow and arrow. The stone inventories include shoulder axes, as those
found at Ya-an in Sikang, and the island of Hainan. The ceremics are
characterized by the long persistence of corded red ware. There was
also painted pottery,black pottery, stone knives and sickles and
pottery tripods , styles that later were duplicated in bronze. The
people practiced single burials the appearence of decapitated heads
at many sites in China suggest war and the expansion of the Chinese
southward.

In ancient times due to the Chinese being a nomadic group, they
probably cremated their dead and learned to bury their dead from the
Blacks. The southern Chinese probably had their own writing system at
an early date considering the - fact that they were well known
traders and most trader-groups developed a script to keep records,
yet we can not be sure of this fact. Moreover, the appearance of
similar pottery signs on South Chinese pottery and North Chinese
pottery indicate a common ideology for both groups.

Many of the elements of southern Chinese cultures and the impliments
found in this area and Southeast Asia show an interrelationship. The
people who live in Southeast Asia today speak the Austro-Asiatic
languages, which are closely related to the Austronesian group. As
indicated by the languages of the aborigines Ta-p'en-K'eng sites are
found spoke Austronesian languages, the cultures of these groups were
also Austronesian according to Dr. Shun-sheng Ling .

As in the African aqualithic, an extensive mound culture existed in
China, an area strectching from i ts plateau in the west to the
Western coast of the Pacific ocean, it includes the Huang-Huai(the
Yellow River and the Huai River) plain of North China and the plain
of the lower valley of the Yangtze River of central China, these
mounds lie in the Ancient line of the Austronesian habitation. In
accordance with oral tradi tion and Chinese proto-history mounds
were in existence during the time of Huangti, and Fu-Hsi as
reflected in the legendary narrative of the burial of Tai-Hao at Wan
Chiul - chiu.

The mound culture began around 3,000 BC in China 7,000 years after a
similar cul ture had developed in central and North Africa, which
moved step by step to the lower valley of the Yangtze River, starting
originally from the lower valley of the Yellow River. By about 1200
BC, the people practiced agriculture and ate aquatic animals.At the
Kiangsu Province mound site called the Hu Shu culture,the mounds were
man-made knolls called 'terraced sites '. The mounds are flat on the
top, here the people placed their dwellings. These mounds served
three purposes i) burial mounds, ii) religious places (i.e.,high
ground) and iii) habitation. The mounds are believed to have been
introduced by the people to China from the Euphrates-Tigris valley
who are believed to have introduced the arts .

In conclusion, the sundonty pattern had nothing to do with the
rise of mongoloid people. C.G. Turner's research
makes it clear that the early Americans were sindonty not sundonty
(see: Turner, "Teeth and prehistory in Asia, Scientific
American,(Feb.1989) 88-96), in fact he places the origin of these
sindonty people in Northern China at Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. An
African influence in the rise of many cultures in East Asia is clearly
supported by the archaeological, toponymic and linguistic
evidence.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

The presence of these Blacks in East Asia make it clear that they had to have migrated to East Asia from Africa, instead of evolving in Asia.

---

quote:

---

As usual you don't have clue what you're writing about. The Dawenkou and Zhoukoudian people were all negroes not mongoloid people as you assume.

---

quote:

---

Winters: This Negro type was characterized by sindonty.

---

quote:

---

Trigger: the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent pattern and other features)

---

^ CL Brace: Terms like Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid are worse than useless


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

Rasol's Favorite Position as he argues without any knowledge at all....
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Winters writes: As usual you don't have clue what you're writing about. This Negro type was characterized by sindonty.

---

quote:

---

Winters: Rasol argues without any knowledge at all.

---

What I know....

Sinodonty is a particular pattern of teeth common among Native Americans and some peoples in Asia, in particular the NORTHERN HAN CHINESE and some Japanese populations.

^ Sinodental continuity between the Upper Paleolithic Cave population at Zhoukoudian to the modern North Chinese.

- Yoshitaka Manabe, , a, Joichi Oyamada, a, Yoshikazu Kitagawa, a, Atsushi Rokutanda, a, Katsutomo Kato, b and Takayuki Matsushita.

^ Therefore debunking...
Winters writes - "Zhoukoudian have *nothing to do with Han Chinese.".

^ I also know you have no answer and will keep arguing in circles.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Rasol 's mantra there is no such thing as mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid but I will quote people who claim such when it serves my purposes....




Shame on you you deciever with forked tongue.




.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Rasol 's mantra there is no such thing as mongoloid, negroid and caucasoid but I will quote people who claim such when it serves my purposes....

---

^ Truth!

This is based on the assumption that intelligent discussants understand context.

Are you saying that *in your case*, this assumption is incorrect?

Professor Keita quotes Professor Larry Angel, Angel uses terms like Negroid, whereas Keita correctly states that race typologies like Negroid have been falsified.

This doesn't show that Keita has a forked tongue.

Rather your failure to understand context suggests that you lack a subtle mind.

Here's my question - how can we help you to make subtle distinctions, so that your mentality can *progress* instead of running forever in place and getting nowhere?



 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Deafening silence.

Winters Sinodontic Negroes of Northern China, "Chinegro" (?), is a parody of Eurocentrisms Hamite [Black] Caucasoids of Northern Africa.

In both cases, agenda to expand one race classification group simply appropriates whatever features are necessary - at the expense of the others.

It is petty pseudo-anthropological imperialism, and laughably transparent, notwithstanding the occasional naive who somehow manages not to see right thru it.

Winters expands Negroid to exclude Mongoloid. [classic mongoloid myth]

White supremacists expand Caucasoid to exlude Negro. [true negro myth]

^ This is exactly why these disconfirmed terms are no longer technically valid.

Advocates of race typology, of whatever stripe are challenged here to take up Winters failed thesis.

You are all formally called out as intellectually bankrupt charletons.

Silence is to be taken as admission of defeat.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
^ Get up and Go to a good library and do some research. Then you find out where true knowledge exist. All knowledge is not on the WWW.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Rasol's Favorite Position as he argues without any knowledge at all....

---

quote:

---

Winters expands Negroid to exclude Mongoloid. [classic mongoloid myth]

---

You're absolutely correct Mongoloids are not Negroes. Keep saying this so you can get your head out of the sand.



 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
All knowledge is not on the internet

---

^ I know. That's why I ignore unreliable websites, such as yours.

Ok, now that we've traded barbs, let's get back to the part where you explain the following....

Winters writes - "Zhoukoudian have *nothing to do with Han Chinese.". Then how come....

Sinodental *continuity* between the Upper Paleolithic Cave population at Zhoukoudian to the modern North Chinese.- Yoshitaka Manabe (??)

^ What's taking so long? Answer or admit defeat.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Winters writes: Mongoloids are not Negroes

Then answer the following....

^ Explain why Bruce Trigger defines 'classic' Mongoloid by 'sinodonty'; while you contradict him by claiming that ancient sinodontic Chinese are Negroes and not Mongoloid. (??)

Assuming we aren't laughing at both you and Trigger and your mutual incoherence, how can we know who is right and who is wrong?

Dead End Dialogue:

Winters: Negroid are not Mongoloid.
Trigger: Mongoloid are not negroid.
Winters: Ancient Chinese are sinodontic negroid and not mongoloid.
Trigger: Sinodontry is a mongoloid feature, not Negroid.

And the winner is.......


CL Brace: The terms Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid are worse than useless
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Moving past the dead-head discourse.

Sinodonty is a northeast asian tooth pattern, not a race.

It's precense in Paleothic China does in fact demonstrate the ancestral relationship, between ancient and modern NorthEast Asians.

But this cannot qualify any other physical attribute, such as skin color, or skull shape.

The evolutionary model of phenotype recognizes that physical features evolve and change with drift and selection.

There is no genetic template for race, nor is there a biological mechanism to cause phenetically unrelated traits to be transferred uniformly and homogeneously.

And this is another reason why, any attempt to understand human biohistory by apriori typologies of Mongoloid, Caucasoid and Negroid -must fail-.
 

---

Posted by prmiddleeastern (Member # 14038) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
you forgot the Arabs, who migrated outside of Africa via Y Haplogroup F.

---

I have not discussed the Arabs because the Levant and Saudi Arabs have different backgrounds. The Levant Arabs are mainly the descendants of the Gutian mountain tribes.

The Saudi Arabs are the result of the mixing of Blacks and Indo-European speaking Sea People since 1100 BC.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by prmiddleeastern:
you forgot the Arabs, who migrated outside of Africa via Y Haplogroup F.

---

I have not discussed the Arabs because the Levant and Saudi Arabs have different backgrounds. The Levant Arabs are mainly the descendants of the Gutian mountain tribes.

The Saudi Arabs are the result of the mixing of Blacks and Indo-European speaking Sea People since 1100 BC.


.

---

But they were of the first who migrated out of Africa alongside the Proto-Asian people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Moving past the dead-head discourse.

Sinodonty is a northeast asian tooth pattern, not a race.

It's precense in Paleothic China does in fact demonstrate the ancestral relationship, between ancient and modern NorthEast Asians.

But this cannot qualify any other physical attribute, such as skin color, or skull shape.

The evolutionary model of phenotype recognizes that physical features evolve and change with drift and selection.

There is no genetic template for race, nor is there a biological mechanism to cause phenetically unrelated traits to be transferred uniformly and homogeneously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^ Get up and Go to a good library and do some research. Then you find out where true knowledge exist. All knowledge is not on the WWW.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

Rasol's Favorite Position as he argues without any knowledge at all....

---

Rasol

quote:

---

Winters expands Negroid to exclude Mongoloid. [classic mongoloid myth]

---

You're absolutely correct Mongoloids are not Negroes. Keep saying this so you can get your head out of the sand.

---

quote:

---

Question #1
Winters writes - "Zhoukoudian have *nothing to do with Han Chinese.".

Then how come....

Sinodental *continuity* between the Upper Paleolithic Cave population at Zhoukoudian to the modern North Chinese.- Yoshitaka Manabe (??)

^ What's taking so long? Answer or admit defeat.

---

quote:

---

This why the discovery of skeletons of Negroes who should characteristics common to contemporary Africans indicate a recent migration to East Asia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ As for the Eurocentric uses of the term.....


... the classical "Mongoloid" type (characterized by the sinodent
pattern and other features) evolved in Asia.-
Bruce Trigger,

.

Trigger specifies dental trait, Sinodontry, although this was not the base for earlier uses of the term.

Very well then, lets examine sinodontry, as the indicator of 'true' mongoloid....

Dental morphology of the Dawenkou Neolithic population in North China: implications for the origin and distribution of Sinodonty

Yoshitaka Manabe, , a, Joichi Oyamada, a, Yoshikazu Kitagawa, a, Atsushi Rokutanda, a, Katsutomo Kato, b and Takayuki Matsushita

We compare the incidence of 25 nonmetric dental traits of the people of the Neolithic Dawenkou culture (6300–4500 BP) sites in Shandong Province, North China with those of other East Asian populations. The Dawenkou teeth had an overwhelmingly greater resemblance to the Sinodont pattern typical of Northeast Asia than to the Sundadont pattern typical of Southeast Asia. Multidimensional scaling using Smith's mean measure of divergence (MMD) statistic place the Dawenkou sample near the Amur and the North China–Mongolia populations in the area of the plot indicating typical Sinodonty. The existence of the Sinodont population in Neolithic North China suggests a possible continuity of Sinodonty from the Upper Cave population at Zhoukoudian (about 34,000–10,000 BP) to the modern North Chinese.

Note carefully the referenced population, the Sinodonts of Upper Cave Zhoukoudian, about which Chris Stringer, in "African Exodus" says the following....

"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China

^ Ancient Paleolithic Asian also *do not conform* to race archtypes.

---

As usual you don't have clue what you're writing about. The Dawenkou and Zhoukoudian people were all negroes not mongoloid people as you assume.



Rasol's Favorite Position as he argues without any knowledge at all....


.
The African type can be traced to the African
type that lived in China. This Negro type was characterized by
sindonty. The earliest examples of sindonty date back to the
Choukoudian/Zhoudian Upper Cave type not the sundonty pattern which
arrived in the Pacific with the classical mongoloid people found in
Indonesia. This classical mongoloids entered Southeast Asia and the
Pacific after African speaking Manding and Dravidian speaking people
had already settled much of the Pacific. This is supported by the
Sindonty pattern found among the Japanese who have a Dravidian and
African substratum in their language.

Secondly, archaeological research makes it clear that Negroids were
very common to ancient China. F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist.
Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30) noted that the one of the earliest skulls
from north China found in the Upper Cave of Chou-k'ou-tien, was of a
Oceanic Negroid/Melanesoid " (p.163).

These blacks were the dominant group in South China. Kwang-chih
Chang,writing in the 4th edition of Archaeology of ancient China
(1986) wrote that:" by the beginning of the Recent (Holocene) period
the population in North China and that in the southwest and in
Indochina had become sufficiently differentiated to be designated as
Mongoloid and OCEANIC NEGROID races respectively…."(p.64). By the
Upper Pleistocene the Negroid type was typified by the Liu-chiang
skulls from Yunnan (Chang, 1986, p.69).

Many researchers believe that the Yi of Southern China were the
ancestors of the Polynesian and Melanesian people.

Negroid skeletons dating to the early periods of Southern Chinese
history have been found in Shangdong, Jiantung, Sichuan, Yunnan,
Pearl River delta and Jiangxi especially at the initial sites of
Chingliengang (Ch'ing-lien-kang) and Mazhiabang (Ma chia-pang) phases
( see: K.C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University
Press:New Haven,1977) p.76) . The Chingliengang culture is often
referred to as the Ta-wen-k'ou (Dawenkou) culture of North China. The
presence of Negroid skeletal remains at Dawenkou sites make it clear
that Negroes were still in the North in addition to South China. The
Dawenkou culture predates the Lung-shan culture which is associated
with the Xia civilization.

The founder of the Xia civilization was Yu. The Great Yu was the
regulator of the waters and the builder of canals. He is also alleged
to be the inventor of wetfield adriculture. Wolfram Eberhard, in The
Local culture of South and East China (Leiden,1968), maintained that
Yu came from the south and established the Xia dynasty in Shansi.

Archaeological evidence supports this view. The foreunner of the Xia
civilization was the Lung-shan (Longshan) culture. The Taosi ruins ,
a Longshan between the Fenhe and Chongshan ranges is considered a
middle and late Xia period site. Another important Longshanoid site
is Qingliangang. The Qingliangang culture is a decendant of the
Hemudu culture and dates to the fifth millennium B.C.(K.C.
Chang, "In search of China's beginnings new light on an old
civilization", American Scientist, 69 (1981) pp.148-160:154).

The oldest neolithic culture in China is the Hemudu culture in
northern Zhejiang province. This culture group had incised and
cord-impressed pottery, rice and domesticated water buffalo, dog and
pig (Chang, 1981: p.152). The Hemudu pottery is reminiscent of
pottery found along the coastal areas of southeastern China and
Taiwan (Chang, 1981: p.154). This indicates that southern Chinese,
who were predominantly Black early settled those parts of China
associated with the Xia and Shang civilizations.

In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung,
Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the
Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang.
The modern Chinese are descendants of the Zhou. The second Shang
Dynasty ( situated at Anyang) was founded by the Yin. As a result
this dynasty is called Shang-Yin. The Yin or Oceanic Mongoloid type
is associated with the Austronesian speakers ( Kwang-chih Chang,
"Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in
South China", Current Anthropology, 5 (1964) pp.359-375 :375). The
Austronesian or Oceanic Mongoloid type were called Yin, Feng, Yen,
Zhiu Yi and Lun Yi.

During the Anyang-Shang period, the Qiang lived in Ch'iang Fang, a
country to the west of Yin-Shang . The Qiang people were often
referred to as the Ta Qiang "many Qiang", they were used as
agricultural workers, and used in Yin-Shang ancestral rites as
sacrifice victims.

In Southeast Asia and southern China, ancient skeletal remains
represented the earliest inhabitants as identical to the Oceanic type
( Kwang-chih Chang, The archareology of ancient China, (New
Haven,1977) p.42; G.H.R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid
from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum
of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp.301-309). Although Negritos were
also established in north and southern China by the beginning of the
Recent (Holocene) period the populations in North China and that in
southern China and IndoChina had become sufficiently differentiated
to be designated as Mongoloid and Negroid-Oceanic respectively, both
having evolved out of a common Upper Plestocene substratum as
represented by the Tzu-yang and Liu-Chiang skulls.

In addition to Oceanic Blacks in Southeast Asia and southern China
shortly before the Christian era Africoids of the Mediterranean type
entered these areas by way of India. Much of the archaeology in
southern China is related to the Southeast Asian patterns, with
numerous finds of chipped stone of the type found in
Szechewan,Kwangsi .Yunan and in the western part of Kwangtung as far
as the Pearl River delta.( Chang, 1977, p.76. ) Neolithic culture of
southern China as the people were parallel to southeastern
development. It seems from the evidence that in China there were
several major areas where the Neolithic way of life characterized by
farming for food, use of pottery and the making of stone instruments.

In Southern China the most well known early cultures were the
Ta-p'enK'eng culture of the southeastern coast, cultures dating to
the 5th millenium. The Ta-p'en-K'eng sites have a chracteristic
cord-marked pottery dating to before theird millennium. A radio-
carbon date is available for this culture of 4450-4350 BC. The color
of the pottery ranges from buff to dark brown, the principal shapes
of the vessels are large globular jars and bowls. The people of this
culture also made many stone sinkers and dugout canoes.There is
believed to have been an early horticultural revolution in the
tropical regions of southeast Asia, with the domestication of
several cultigens. As in Africa this culture was Aqualithic with
most of the people living on mounds and pilled houses. These
horticulturalist ate aqualtic animals such as fish and shellfish,
and grew root crops such as yam and taro .The Ta-p'en-K'eng site has
provided much insight into their agricultural origins as indicated
by the great variety of cord marks on the pottery demonstrates. The
habi tat of the ancient people who made this ware at Ta-p'en-K' eng,
was widespread in IndoChina and even in southern China and Japan.
The Hoabinhian culture of Vietnam and that of Ta-p' en-K'eng, were
characterized by cord-marked pottery which is identical in both
places , and it is possible that the Yang -shao site at Huang Ho
basin in North China may have also been founded by blacks in
southern China who probably been the cultivation of rice
. In the southeast southerners began at Hupeh and Kuangsi the
cultivation of means of artificial irrigation and by terracing of the
mountain slopes. These same Austronesians were already using bronze
before the Chinese. The women's standing was high, she participated
in the worship which consisted of a mountain and snake cults.There is
evidence from the physical anthropologist that skeletons from
Shantung and Kiangsu show resemblances to the Negroid type of
southern Chinese rather than Mongoloid, especially at the intial
Ch'ing-lien -Kang and Ma chia-pang phases. As a result of this
evidence it seems that agriculture was widely practiced in Southeast
Asia and China long before the full impact of farming was felt in
the North among the Chinese.

Neolithic technology in south China is typified by hunting with the
bow and arrow. The stone inventories include shoulder axes, as those
found at Ya-an in Sikang, and the island of Hainan. The ceremics are
characterized by the long persistence of corded red ware. There was
also painted pottery,black pottery, stone knives and sickles and
pottery tripods , styles that later were duplicated in bronze. The
people practiced single burials the appearence of decapitated heads
at many sites in China suggest war and the expansion of the Chinese
southward.

In ancient times due to the Chinese being a nomadic group, they
probably cremated their dead and learned to bury their dead from the
Blacks. The southern Chinese probably had their own writing system at
an early date considering the - fact that they were well known
traders and most trader-groups developed a script to keep records,
yet we can not be sure of this fact. Moreover, the appearance of
similar pottery signs on South Chinese pottery and North Chinese
pottery indicate a common ideology for both groups.

Many of the elements of southern Chinese cultures and the impliments
found in this area and Southeast Asia show an interrelationship. The
people who live in Southeast Asia today speak the Austro-Asiatic
languages, which are closely related to the Austronesian group. As
indicated by the languages of the aborigines Ta-p'en-K'eng sites are
found spoke Austronesian languages, the cultures of these groups were
also Austronesian according to Dr. Shun-sheng Ling .

As in the African aqualithic, an extensive mound culture existed in
China, an area strectching from i ts plateau in the west to the
Western coast of the Pacific ocean, it includes the Huang-Huai(the
Yellow River and the Huai River) plain of North China and the plain
of the lower valley of the Yangtze River of central China, these
mounds lie in the Ancient line of the Austronesian habitation. In
accordance with oral tradi tion and Chinese proto-history mounds
were in existence during the time of Huangti, and Fu-Hsi as
reflected in the legendary narrative of the burial of Tai-Hao at Wan
Chiul - chiu.

The mound culture began around 3,000 BC in China 7,000 years after a
similar cul ture had developed in central and North Africa, which
moved step by step to the lower valley of the Yangtze River, starting
originally from the lower valley of the Yellow River. By about 1200
BC, the people practiced agriculture and ate aquatic animals.At the
Kiangsu Province mound site called the Hu Shu culture,the mounds were
man-made knolls called 'terraced sites '. The mounds are flat on the
top, here the people placed their dwellings. These mounds served
three purposes i) burial mounds, ii) religious places (i.e.,high
ground) and iii) habitation. The mounds are believed to have been
introduced by the people to China from the Euphrates-Tigris valley
who are believed to have introduced the arts .

In conclusion, the sundonty pattern had nothing to do with the
rise of mongoloid people. C.G. Turner's research
makes it clear that the early Americans were sindonty not sundonty
(see: Turner, "Teeth and prehistory in Asia, Scientific
American,(Feb.1989) 88-96), in fact he places the origin of these
sindonty people in Northern China at Zhoukoudian Upper Cave. An
African influence in the rise of many cultures in East Asia is clearly
supported by the archaeological, toponymic and linguistic
evidence.

---

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ I asked for answers, not your usual "distract them with a big gust of wind", which never has worked for on Egyptsearch and never will.


I ask again:

Question # 1:

^ Can you explain why East Asians have no contemporary African genetic lineages such as E3a and E3b (?)


Question # 2:

^ Can you specify what characteristics East Asians share in common with modern Africans, that were not also present in *ancient* Africa when the common ancestors of all non-Africans would have outmigrated?

Question # 3:

Winters writes - "Zhoukoudian have *nothing to do with Han Chinese.".

Then how come....

Sinodental *continuity* between the Upper Paleolithic Cave population at Zhoukoudian to the modern North Chinese.- Yoshitaka Manabe (??)


In fact you have not answered any of these three questions and are recieving a FAILING grade.

Last chance Winters.

What's taking so long?
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
You have not read the above. It is a waste of time discussing this issue with you. You have not countered the evidence that Africans carry this trait.



Rasol's Favorite Position as he argues without any knowledge at all....
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

You have not read the above. It is a waste of time discussing this issue with you.

---

Not a single sentense in your spamblasts address this...

Question # 1:

^ Can you explain why East Asians have no contemporary African genetic lineages such as E3a and E3b (?)

You don't even have the honesty descency or courtesy to provide a straight answer to a straighforward question.

booooo!

No answer = failing grade.


Dr. Winters hides from questions he can't answer.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^

quote:

---

You have not countered the evidence that Africans carry this trait.

---

I assume you mean to reference sinodonty?

There are three problems with your statement.

1) You have not provided any evidence of Africans carrying sinodonty.

2) Even had you - it would not aid your lie that there is no biological relationship between the ancient sinodontal population of China, and the modern sinodontal population of China.

3) Asking me to counter your nonexistent evidence does not answer my question.

Which was...

Question # 3:

Winters writes - "Zhoukoudian have *nothing to do with Han Chinese.".

Then how come....

Sinodental *continuity* between the Upper Paleolithic Cave population at Zhoukoudian to the modern North Chinese.- Yoshitaka Manabe (??)

HOW COME, Winters.

HOW COME? HOW COME?? HOW COME???

Dr Winters. We know how frightened you get when your joke-thesis explode in your face, but do let us know when you're ready to come out of hiding and ANSWER MY QUESTIONS:



Winters: Ashamed of failing grade, due to no answers.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ [QUOTE]
HOW COME, Winters.

HOW COME? HOW COME?? HOW COME???

---

......I'm so dumb? How come I'm so dumb?.......

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Because you keep running in place and getting nowhere, that's how come.

But don't worry, since you can't answer the three questions I will answer them for you.

Others can learn while you run in place.....
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Question # 1:

^ Can you explain why East Asians have no contemporary African genetic lineages such as E3a and E3b (?)

---

quote:

---

Question # 2:

^ Can you specify what characteristics East Asians share in common with modern Africans, that were not also present in *ancient* Africa when the common ancestors of all non-Africans would have outmigrated?

---

quote:

---

Question # 3:

Winters writes - "Zhoukoudian have *nothing to do with Han Chinese.".

Then how come....

Sinodental *continuity* between the Upper Paleolithic Cave population at Zhoukoudian to the modern North Chinese.- Yoshitaka Manabe (??)

HOW COME, Winters.

---

Because the ancient popluation of Northern China is ancestral to the modern population.

Aptly named Sinodonty originated in Paleolithic East Asia among their ancestors.

This does not tell us anything at all about facial features or skin color, or hair texture.

In the Paleolithic, many appearance features of all humans would have been more similar to tropical Africans.... as that is where all these populations ultimately come from anyway.

This is why the attempt to append Negro or Mongoloid to Sinodonty is non-sequitur.

But to state that modern Northen Chinese are not related to the original sinodontic Chinese populations.... is simply ridiculous.

Winters knows this, and is exposed as fallacious on this point.

He has nowhere to run to....

^ Game over Winters.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Rasol you have failed to contradict any of the skeletal evidence I presented

You have nowhere to run to....

^ Game over Rasol.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Rasol you have failed to contradict any of the skeletal evidence I presented.

---

You're a joke. If you were a teacher you'd be fired for fraud and incompetence.

Either answer my questions or go back to doing this....



^ Teach, Winters.....teach!!!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
the quietus continues....

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ Deafening silence.

Winters Sinodontic Negroes of Northern China, "Chinegro" (?), is a parody of Eurocentrisms Hamite [Black] Caucasoids of Northern Africa.

In both cases, agenda to expand one race classification group simply appropriates whatever features are necessary - at the expense of the others.

It is petty pseudo-anthropological imperialism, and laughably transparent, notwithstanding the occasional naive who somehow manages not to see right thru it.

Winters expands Negroid to exclude Mongoloid. [classic mongoloid myth]

White supremacists expand Caucasoid to exlude Negro. [true negro myth]

^ This is exactly why these disconfirmed terms are no longer technically valid.

Advocates of race typology, of whatever stripe are challenged here to take up Winters failed thesis.

You are all formally called out as intellectually bankrupt charletons.

Silence is to be taken as admission of defeat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
mtDNA research supports an African influence in Near Oceania. For example researchers have found that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania (Gonder et al, 2006).


In addition, the M1 mutations 16129,16189,16249 and 16311 are found in many southeast and East Asian haplogroups (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002).

This molecular evidence further supports the Neolithic skeletal evidence of a recent migration of Africans to the Pacific and east Asian region after the initial exit from Africa of AMH.




.

---

quote:

---

Whole-mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages
Mary Katherine Gonder*, Holly M. Mortensen*, Floyd A. Reed*, Alexandra de Sousa{dagger},{ddagger} and Sarah A. Tishkoff*

* Department of Biology, University of Maryland
{dagger} Center for the Advanced Study of Hominid Paleobiology
{ddagger} Department of Anthropology, George Washington University

E-mail: tishkoff@umd.edu.

Accepted for publication December 12, 2006.

Studies of human mitochondrial (mt) DNA genomes demonstrate that the root of the human phylogenetic tree occurs in Africa. Although 2 mtDNA lineages with an African origin (haplogroups M and N) were the progenitors of all non-African haplogroups, macrohaplogroup L (including haplogroups L0–L6) is limited to sub-Saharan Africa. Several L haplogroup lineages occur most frequently in eastern Africa (e.g., L0a, L0f, L5, and L3g), but some are specific to certain ethnic groups, such as haplogroup lineages L0d and L0k that previously have been found nearly exclusively among southern African "click" speakers. Few studies have included multiple mtDNA genome samples belonging to haplogroups that occur in eastern and southern Africa but are rare or absent elsewhere. This lack of sampling in eastern Africa makes it difficult to infer relationships among mtDNA haplogroups or to examine events that occurred early in human history. We sequenced 62 complete mtDNA genomes of ethnically diverse Tanzanians, southern African Khoisan speakers, and Bakola Pygmies and compared them with a global pool of 226 mtDNA genomes. From these, we infer phylogenetic relationships amongst mtDNA haplogroups and estimate the time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for haplogroup lineages. These data suggest that Tanzanians have high genetic diversity and possess ancient mtDNA haplogroups, some of which are either rare (L0d and L5) or absent (L0f) in other regions of Africa. We propose that a large and diverse human population has persisted in eastern Africa and that eastern Africa may have been an ancient source of dispersion of modern humans both within and outside of Africa.

---

quote:

---

Doug writes: [Winters] I think you are misquoting the study:

---

quote:

---

Fabricated quotes from Winters: In addition, the M1 mutations are found in many southeast and East Asian haplogroups...

---

Booooooo Clyde, booooo.

Not a quote from a geneticist...just your pathetic attempts to put your words in their mouths to support a lie that geneticists *HAVE SPECIFICALLY FALSIFIED*:

The reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1. There is *no evidence whatsoever* that M1 originated in India. - Chang Sun.

Keep *lying* in place....

 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
And so....

quote:

---

I ask again:

Question # 1:

^ Can you explain why East Asians have no contemporary African genetic lineages such as E3a and E3b (?)


Question # 2:

^ Can you specify what characteristics East Asians share in common with modern Africans, that were not also present in *ancient* Africa when the common ancestors of all non-Africans would have outmigrated?

Question # 3:

Winters writes - "Zhoukoudian have *nothing to do with Han Chinese.".

Then how come....

Sinodental *continuity* between the Upper Paleolithic Cave population at Zhoukoudian to the modern North Chinese.- Yoshitaka Manabe (??)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
mtDNA research supports an African influence in Near Oceania. For example researchers have found that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania (Gonder et al, 2006).


In addition, the M1 mutations 16129,16189,16249 and 16311 are found in many southeast and East Asian haplogroups (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002).

This molecular evidence further supports the Neolithic skeletal evidence of a recent migration of Africans to the Pacific and east Asian region after the initial exit from Africa of AMH.




.

---

quote:

---

Finally, our limited genetic data from Tanzanians belonging to haplogroups M1, N1, and J suggest 2 alternatives that are not mutually exclusive. Populations in Tanzania may have been important in the migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions, as noted in previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Quintana- Murci et al. 1999). For example, mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, whereas Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern and Eurasian origin. However, the presence of haplogroups N1 and J in Tanzania suggest ‘‘back’’ migration from the Middle East or Eurasia into eastern Africa, which has been inferred from previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Kivisild et al. 2004). These results are intriguing
and suggest that the role of Tanzanians in the migration of
modern humans within and out of Africa should be analyzed
in greater detail after more extensive data collection,
particularly from analysis of Y-, X-, and autosomal chromosome
markers. Our analyses of African mtDNAs suggest
populations in eastern Africa have played an important and persistent role in the origin and diversification of modern
humans.

---

quote:

---

Finally, our limited genetic data from Tanzanians belonging to haplogroups M1, N1, and J suggest 2 alternatives that are not mutually exclusive. Populations in Tanzania may have been important in the migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions, as noted in previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Quintana- Murci et al. 1999). For example, mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, whereas Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern and Eurasian origin. However, the presence of haplogroups N1 and J in Tanzania suggest ‘‘back’’ migration from the Middle East or Eurasia into eastern Africa, which has been inferred from previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Kivisild et al. 2004). These results are intriguing
and suggest that the role of Tanzanians in the migration of
modern humans within and out of Africa should be analyzed
in greater detail after more extensive data collection,
particularly from analysis of Y-, X-, and autosomal chromosome
markers. Our analyses of African mtDNAs suggest
populations in eastern Africa have played an important and persistent role in the origin and diversification of modern
humans.

---

As you can see from the above I was just repeating what the authors said about M1 in Tanzania. If you want to dispute anyone argue with Gonder et al.


.
 

---

Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
 
For Clyde:
Science 22 February 2008:
Vol. 319. no. 5866, pp. 1039 - 1040
The Legitimacy of Genetic Ancestry Tests

I found the Policy Forum "The science and business of genetic ancestry testing" (D. A. Bolnick et al., 19 October 2007, p. 399) to be a shallow discussion of a very complex topic.

Bolnick et al. criticize one company in particular--DNAPrint Genomics, Inc.--for promoting the idea that race is rooted in one's DNA (1). In fact, DNAPrint Genomics takes great pains to explain to customers that both genetics and race are imperfectly correlated with geography. DNAPrint's Web site (1) and print publications (2) clearly explain that the bases for human-derived notions of "race" incorporate genetics as well as geography, religion, culture, and even socioeconomics. Bolnick et al., however, deceptively imply that genetics does not constitute even a component of the equation.

Bolnick et al. also allege that genomic ancestry panels present a biased picture of non-neutral mutations, which is not the case (2, 3). They then imply that genomic ancestry methods rely on imperfect--i.e., insufficiently large--databases and thus produce misleading results. However, the onus on the database developer is not to build a perfect database, but rather to quantify how imperfect the database is. DNAPrint Genomics has spent enormous resources doing just that (2).
Likewise, Bolnick et al. focus on the fact that alleles are continuously distributed, and that "companies sometimes fail to mention that an allele could have been inherited from a population in which it is less common." This statement is misleading. The continuity of allele frequencies is the reason why, when estimating genomic ancestry with respect to a given population model, we use large numbers of well-characterized markers appropriate for that model, with algorithms capable of accommodating uncertainty. DNAPrint Genomics has gone to great lengths to determine confidence intervals and to quantify the bias and mean square error of our estimates. If a customer's likelihood of ancestry from a certain parental population is very small, the customer's report will reflect this.

I also object to the implication that the detection of lower levels of "Native American" ancestry in Asia and Europe is evidence that the AncestryByDNA test is illegitimate. Native Americans are derived from southwestern Siberia and central Asia, an area of the world that likely also contributed through population expansions and migrations to many other populations (2, 3). Numerous "Native American"Y and mtDNA haplogroups have been found in Europe and Central Asia [figures 4-3 and 4-4 of (2) and (4, 5)]. The confusion lies in the choice of the term "Native American." Naming parental populations with descriptors based on modern-day populations might lead to misinterpretations (2), but DNAPrint Genomics makes every effort to explain this complex topic to a lay customer base (1).

I am also offended by the implication that scientists who work for companies are corrupt. It is wrong to assume that any science coming from a company is suspect because money is the motivator of its generation, while overlooking the possibility that an academic scientist may falsify data in order to procure a grant, ensure tenure, or otherwise enhance stature or financial position. Generalizing about individuals on group membership in this way is the intellectual equivalent of bigotry.

Bolnick et al. believe that anyone who says they belong to a group should belong to that group--regardless of whether or not their deep ancestors (as reported by DNA tests) were part of the parental population associated with that group. The irony is that we do not disagree. In some cases, genetic testing is simply not relevant--not because it is flawed, but because it reports only one aspect of "race" or "ethnicity." Genomic ancestry tests demonstrate that admixture is the rule rather than the exception and hence support that idea that human-derived notions of "race" are based on the subjective and ever-changing concepts of social and political identity.

Tony Frudakis
Chief Scientific Officer
DNAPrint Genomics, Inc.
Sarasota, FL 34243, USA

References

1. DNAPrint Genomics, Frequently Asked Questions (www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/faq/).
2. T. Frudakis, Molecular Photofitting: Predicting Ancestry and Phenotype from DNA (Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2007).
3. M. Jobling, M. Hurles, C. Tyler-Smith, Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples, and Disease (Garland Publishing, New York, 2004).
4. M. Reidla et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73, 1178 (2003).
5. P. Underhill et al., Ann. Hum. Genet. 65, 43 (2001).
 

---

Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
 
Response

Our purpose in writing this Policy Forum (19 October 2007, p. 399) was not to persuade the public that tests for genomic ancestry are wholly illegitimate, as Frudakis assumes. Rather, it was to call attention to this influential commercial enterprise and the need for consumers (and the public) to better understand the capabilities and limitations of the available tests. We also hoped to inspire genetics and anthropological associations to discuss these issues with their members.

We did not suggest, as Frudakis states, that there is no connection between genetics and societal interpretations of race. Racial identity is shaped by a variety of factors, including social relationships, life experiences, and biological ancestry. Although DNAPrint's Web site states that race reflects more than genetics, it still (as of 2008) leads consumers to believe that race is inscribed in one's DNA. DNAPrint defines the "biogeographical ancestry" measured by their test as "the biological or genetic component of race" (1), and their underlying model reinforces the archaic racial view that four discrete "parental" populations existed in the past. The assertion that there is some sort of discrete genetic component to race is problematic, and there is no evidence that only four isolated populations existed at any point in the evolutionary history of our species (2, 3). Furthermore, an extensive derivative literature makes it clear that many people think that the AncestryByDNA test identifies their racial makeup (4-7).

Frudakis asserts that our Policy Forum claimed that genomic ancestry panels are rife with biased, non-neutral mutations. We made no such claim. Instead, we noted that some ancestry informative markers (AIMs) involve loci that have undergone selection (8). On the basis of the information provided by DNAPrint Genomics, it is clear that some AIMs are skin pigmentation alleles and others are blood protein alleles involved in malarial resistance (1, 4, 9-11). It is therefore important to consider whether these markers measure ancestry alone, or whether they also reflect shared environmental exposures (and thus are not always indicative of shared ancestry). Because the AncestryByDNA test does not differentiate between different evolutionary reasons for shared alleles, the test results may be misleading.

Frudakis then objects to the suggestion that genetic ancestry tests are problematic because they may yield incomplete results due to limited sampling. He is right that perfect databases will never exist, and we agree that companies should quantify the uncertainty and limitations imposed by their databases. DNAPrint Genomics does calculate the bias, error, and confidence intervals of their estimates, but incomplete geographic sampling creates systematic bias that is difficult to quantify statistically. The sampling of a few, widely dispersed populations for marker selection likely influences the test's results. It is also U.S.-biased because it represents a specifically American racial understanding of human difference. Furthermore, most mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome tests do not provide any such statistics, so consumers are often unaware that those tests may yield incomplete or uncertain results.

Frudakis suggests that the problem with the AncestryByDNA test is not that it detects shared ancestry between Native Americans and Eurasians, but that this ancestry is referred to as "Native American." We agree. Because the shared alleles predate the divergence of these populations and likely originated in Central Asia, it is misleading to use them as markers of "Native American" ancestry.

Finally, it is clear that scientists who work for companies are not inherently more easily corruptible than academic scientists. That said, there are differences in how academic and commercial products are evaluated. Peer review may be imperfect, but it does require academics to convince experts that their conclusions are supported by the data. Commercial products are not subject to the same system of peer review, and it can be difficult to evaluate conclusions based on proprietary databases. Consequently, conflicts of interest may lead to different outcomes in academia and the business world.

Deborah A. Bolnick
Department of Anthropology
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712, USA

Duana Fullwiley*
Departments of Anthropology and African and African-American Studies
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dfullwil@fas.harvard.edu

Jonathan Marks
Department of Anthropology
University of North Carolina
Charlotte, NC 28223, USA

Susan M. Reverby
Department of Women's Studies
Wellesley College
Wellesley, MA 02481, USA

Jonathan Kahn
Hamline University School of Law
St. Paul, MN 55104, USA

Kimberly Tallbear
Department of American Indian Studies
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

Departments of Environmental Science
Policy and Management, and Rhetoric
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Jenny Reardon
Department of Sociology
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA

Richard S. Cooper
Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology
Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine
Maywood, IL 60153, USA

Troy Duster
Department of Sociology
New York University
New York, NY 10012, USA

Department of Sociology
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA

Joan H. Fujimura
Department of Sociology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706, USA

Jay S. Kaufman
Department of Epidemiology
University of North Carolina School of Public Health
Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

Ann Morning
Department of Sociology
New York University
New York, NY 10012, USA

Alondra Nelson
Departments of Sociology and African-American Studies
Yale University
New Haven, CT 06520, USA

Pilar Ossorio
University of Wisconsin Law School
Madison, WI 53706, USA

References

1. DNAPrint Genomics, Frequently Asked Questions (www.ancestrybydna.com/welcome/faq/).
2. K. Weiss, M. Fullerton, Evol. Anthropol. 14, 165 (2005).
3. A. Templeton, Nature 416, 45 (2002).
4. K. TallBear, dissertation, University of California at Santa Cruz (2005).
5. N. Wade, The New York Times, 1 October 2002, p. F4.
6. A. Harmon, The New York Times, 12 April 2006, p. A1.
7. N. Wade, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (Penguin Press, New York, 2006).
8. J. Akey et al., Genome Res. 12, 1805 (2002).
9. E. J. Parra et al., Am. J. Hum. Genet. 63, 1839 (1998).
10. E. J. Parra et al., Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 114, 18 (2001).
11. T. Frudakis et al., J. Forensic Sci. 48, 1 (2003).
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
This is good stuff.

From studying the genetics literature what I find most shocking is that in many cases researchers will not publish data which conflicts with their notion of what race this one or that one belongs too. This is wrong and leads to misinterpretations of population history and movements.

Moreover to make it appear as if groups are not related to Africans they will change the names of haplogroups and haplotypes to fool people. For example, instead of calling East African M1 in Southeast Asia M1, they call it D2. Go figure.

You have to do a lot of research to find the true HISTORY of Black and African people.

.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Here is an aboriginal group from the Northern Philippines called the Batak. They live on the northern portion of Palawan Islands and number about 10,000.
























These are not the same Batak as those of Indonesia and Sumatra, even though they are possibly related.

quote:

---

The Batak are one of about 70 indigenous peoples of the Philippines. They are located in the northeastern portions of Palawan, a relatively large island in the southwest of the archipelago. There are only about 500 Batak remaining. Also called Tinitianes, the Batak are considered by anthropologists to be closely related to the Ayta of Central Luzon, another Negrito tribe. They tend to be small in stature, with dark skin and short curly or "kinky" hair, traits which originally garnered the "Negrito" groups their name. Still, there is some debate as to whether the Batak are related to the other Negrito groups of the Philippines or actually to other, physically similar groups in Indonesia or as far away as the Andaman islands.

Batak have for centuries combined a hunting-gathering lifestyle with seeding of useful food plants, kaingin, a slash and burn farming method, and trading. It is believed that they may have had trading relations with Chinese merchants as early as 500 AD. They are a somewhat xenophobic people, regularly retreating into the forest to avoid contact with outsiders.

As a result, during the mid to late-20th century the Batak were easily pushed out of their preferred gathering grounds by the sea into the mountains by emigrant farmers, mostly from Luzon. Living in less fertile areas, they have attempted to supplement their income by harvesting and selling various nontimber forest products, such as rattan, tree resins, and honey. This has been met with resistance by the government and commercial collectors, who assert that the Batak have no legal right to these resources. Conservationists, however, have taken an interest in the Batak's collection methods, which are much more sustainable than the techniques used by commercial concessionaires.

The Batak were once a nomadic people, but have since, at the behest of the government, settled small villages. Still, they often go on gathering trips into the forest for a few days at a time, an activity which has both economic and spiritual value for them. Their belief system is that of animism, which is belief in spirits that reside in nature. Some, called "Panyeon", are generally suspicious of humans but are tolerant of them, as long as people don't abuse or waste the resources of the forest. Other spirits, called "Diwata" are generally benevolent. All are capricious. Batak make regular offerings to these spirits, and Shamans undergo spiritual possession in order to communicate with the spirits and heal the sick.

Rapid depopulation, restricted forest access, sedentary living, and incursion by immigrants has devastated the group culturally. Today, very few Batak marry other Batak but tend to marry from other neighboring groups. The pattern has been than the children of these marriages tend to not follow Batak cultural ways, and today "pure" Batak are rare. As a result Batak are being absorbed into a more diffuse group of upland indigenous peoples who are slowing losing their tribal identities, and with it their unique spirituality and culture; there is even some debate as to whether or not they still exist as a distinct ethnic entity.

---

From: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batak_%28Philippines%29
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Couple more nice images from Palawan:





From: http://www.plongphotovideo.com/photography_picture_gallery_palawan_scene.htm







From: http://www.kent.ac.uk/anthropology/department/staff/darioN/index.html

Another group from the Philippines is the Tagbanua.

Some of these can be seen here:

http://ringo.com/photos/album.html?albumId=42274261



The Sea Gypsies:

http://ringo.com/photos/album.html?albumId=41600218


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
And last but not least more people from the Pearl of the Orient(Philippines):








From: http://www.outscape.net/trip/archives/entries/sabang_palawan.html
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Moreover to make it appear as if groups are not related to Africans they will change the names of haplogroups

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
How am I lying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
How am I lying?

---

Well, 3 different people in this thread have now called you a liar on this point.

So perhaps you can make up another pathetic conspiracy theory to explain why.... see if it helps you to delude yourself for a little bit longer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[qb] mtDNA research supports an African influence in Near Oceania. For example researchers have found that the Tanzanian M1 haplogroup cluster with people from Oceania (Gonder et al, 2006).


In addition, the M1 mutations 16129,16189,16249 and 16311 are found in many southeast and East Asian haplogroups (Fucharoen et al, 2001; Yao et al, 2002).

This molecular evidence further supports the Neolithic skeletal evidence of a recent migration of Africans to the Pacific and east Asian region after the initial exit from Africa of AMH.




.

---

As usual an incomplete, therefore misleading, quote. this is the complete quote and it does not support Clyde's argument:

quote:

---

Finally, our limited genetic data from Tanzanians belonging to haplogroups M1, N1, and J suggest 2 alternatives that are not mutually exclusive. Populations in Tanzania may have been important in the migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions, as noted in previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Quintana- Murci et al. 1999). For example, mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, whereas Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern and Eurasian origin. However, the presence of haplogroups N1 and J in Tanzania suggest ‘‘back’’ migration from the Middle East or Eurasia into eastern Africa, which has been inferred from previous studies of other populations in eastern Africa (Kivisild et al. 2004). These results are intriguing
and suggest that the role of Tanzanians in the migration of
modern humans within and out of Africa should be analyzed
in greater detail after more extensive data collection,
particularly from analysis of Y-, X-, and autosomal chromosome
markers. Our analyses of African mtDNAs suggest
populations in eastern Africa have played an important and persistent role in the origin and diversification of modern
humans.

---

---

quote:

---

How can you claim I'm lying when the quote was taken from Gonder et al

---

quote:

---

you can see from the above it is Gonder et al that claim correspondence for M1 in Oceania

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

How can you claim I'm lying when the quote was taken from Gonder et al

---

This quote.....

"In addition, the M1 mutations are found in many southeast and East Asian haplogroups".

...is fabricated by you, and not from the study.

quote:

---

you can see from the above it is Gonder et al that claim correspondence for M1 in Oceania

---

^ Only to people who are stupid and don't know how to read.

-> "mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern."

Meaning: Tanzana has M1, N1 and J haplotypes. M, *NOT* M1 is found in Oceana. N and J [including but not limited to N1] is found SouthWest Asia and Europe.

Nowhere is anything said about M1 found in Oceana.

If you seriously don't understand that, then you simply can't read and your illiterate opinions are worthless.

The 3 posters calling you a liar can read.

Much to your dismay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

How can you claim I'm lying when the quote was taken from Gonder et al

---

This quote.....

"In addition, the M1 mutations are found in many southeast and East Asian haplogroups".

...is fabricated by you, and not from the study.

quote:

---

you can see from the above it is Gonder et al that claim correspondence for M1 in Oceania

---

^ Only to people who are stupid and don't know how to read.

-> "mtDNAs of Tanzanians belonging to haplogroup M1 cluster with peoples from Oceania, Tanzanian mtDNAs belonging to haplogroup N1 and J cluster with peoples of Middle Eastern."

Meaning: Tanzana has M1, N1 and J haplotypes. M, *NOT* M1 is found in Oceana. N and J [including but not limited to N1] is found SouthWest Asia and Europe.

Nowhere is anything said about M1 found in Oceana.

If you seriously don't understand that, then you simply can't read and your illiterate opinions are worthless.

The 3 posters calling you a liar can read.

Much to your dismay.

---

quote:

---

mtDNAs belonging to haplogroups M and N form 2 monophyletic
clades (fig. 2A). These 2 M and N haplogroup clades
included a few Tanzanians (belonging to haplogroups M1,
M, N1, and J), suggesting possible recent gene flow back
into Africa and/or that ancestors of the Tanzanian populations may have been a source of migration of modern humans from Africa to other regions (fig. 2B).

---

quote:

---

The age of the youngest node containing both African and non-African sequences (node S) is 94.3 6 9.9 kya and represents an upper bound time estimate for an exodus out of Africa.

---

quote:

---

You're full of it.

---

quote:

---

Gonder et al is not talking about haplotypes they are talking about mtDNA as noted above.

---

quote:

---

I will make no further comments on this issue.

---

quote:

---

rasol: nowhere is anything said about M1 found in Oceana

---

quote:

---

Quetzalcoatl
Not only is Rasol correct, but Gonder et al, as you can see from the title of the paper, " “Whole mtDNA Genome Sequence Analysis of Ancient African Lineages" is not dealing with recent gene flow from Africa but rather with the initial Out of Africa expansion of mode humans.

---

 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
LOL @ Winters squirming.

By the way Doug, nice pictures of the Batak who are an aboriginal group like the Aeta. But most Filipinos like myself who are not aboriginal are still considered not black were living in the Philippines thousands of years before Europeans showed up.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
LOL @ Winters squirming.

By the way Doug, nice pictures of the Batak who are an aboriginal group like the Aeta. But most Filipinos like myself who are not aboriginal are still considered not black were living in the Philippines thousands of years before Europeans showed up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andriano:
I hope, aliens from other planets was parents of human`s white race. The russians have more of all alien`s blood because they was first in space in everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I accept the fact there were ancient Blacks in Asia. These Blacks were the Australian type people who mainly live in Australia and the Hill regions of Oceania.

The coastal Melanesians on the otherhand, are descendants of recent Africans who settled the area after being forced from Asia. The Polynesians/Filipinos and etc., who are known as the original Mongoloid people and called Classical Mongoloid in the literature probably originated in Anatolia or Mesopotamia.

The Australians are the original settlers of Asia (around 60kybp), and may represent members of the first out of Africa migrants. I never refer to these people as Africans, although I do recognize them as Blacks.

The Anu or Black pygmies probably represent the second African migration of homo sapien sapiens out of Africa. I would class these people with the CroMagnon/Grimaldi group who entered Iberia after 34kybp. Remnants of this great people were found on every continent when Europeans first explored the world.

The Bushman(/Proto-Bantu) type may represent the Natufians who began to migrate out of Africa after 20,000 and settled in the Levant which was first settled by Cro Magnon people who early replaced the Neanderthal folk. The Natufians would represent the fourth African migration into Eurasia.

By the time the Bushmen entered Eurasia the Classical mongoloid people who are the ancestors of the Indonesians/Vietnamese/Filipinos and etc. were probably already settled in Anatolia. The classical mongoloids probably constructed Catal Huyuk. The close relationship between Sumerian and the AustroAsiatic languages suggest that the classical Mongoloid people may have also inhabited Mesopotamia by the time the Sumerians entered the area.

It appears to have been a natural catastrophe which caused the classical mongoloids to migrate eastward. We know this because many of the former sites of the Classical mongoloids in Anatolia were occupied by the Kushites (Kaska) people after 2500 BC.

By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.

By 1000 BC the Hau/Han tribes came down from the mountains and pushed the classical mongoloids southward into Yunnan and eventually Southeast Asia. The Han began to make the Yueh and li min people their slaves. The Han often used the Qiang (another Black tribe) as sacrifice victims.
The Han killed off as many Black tribes as they could. The only thing that saved the pygmies in East Asia, was the fact that they moved into the mountains in areas they could easily defend from Han attacks.

This movement of Han and classical mongoloid people southward forced the Kushite/African (Qiang, li min and other African) tribes onto the Pacific Islands. It is these Africans who represent the coastal Melanesians.

The Sumerians, Elamites, Xia (of China), Harappans of the Indus Valley and coastal Melanoids are the Proto-Saharan people known in History as the Kushites.These people originated in the Highland regions of Middle Africa, and began to occupy the former trade centers of the Anu in Eurasia and the Americas. It is for this reason that we find West African placenames in the Pacific and India.

Given the origin of the classical mongoloids in Anatolia, and the Han Chinese somewhere in North China or Central Asia,the Southeast Asians are not descendants of the first African migration to Eurasia. This is why the Chinese and Classical mongoloid people share few if any genes with the Australians. The Classical mongoloids share genes mainly with the coastal Melanesians who are of African origin, but few genes with the Chinese of East Asia.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
First of all the original migrants out of Africa had different features than the contemporary Africans.

Here is an Australian




Here is a contemporary Africans



You can clearly see differences between the Australian and African type; while both individuals are described as Negroes you will note that the forehead of the Australian matches in many ways the cranium of earlier hominid forms dating back to the rise of homo sapiens sapiens in Africa.

Any physical anthropologists would note these changes. The coastal Melanesians usually show mixed Australian-African features or features commonly found among Africans--not Australians.\


Fijians




Australians




A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.


The ancestors of the Melanesians and Polynesians probably lived in East Asia. The late appearance of Melanoid people from East Asia on the shore areas of Oceania would explain the differences between the genetic make up of Melanesians living in the highlands and Melanesians living along the shore [1-2].

The skeletal evidence from East Asia [3-7,12] suggests that the TMRCAs of the Polynesians and some of the coastal Melanesians may be mainland East Asia, not Taiwan. The ancestral population for the shoreline Melanesians was probably forced from East Asia by Proto-Polynesians as they were pushed into Southeast Asia by the Han or contemporary Chinese. This would explain the genetic diversity existing among shoreline Melanesians, in comparison to the genetic homogeneity among isolated inland Melanesian, like the Highland New Guineans.

There were two Shang Dynasties, one Melanoid (Qiang-Shang) and the other Proto-Polynesian (Yin-Shang). The first Shang Dynasty was founded by Proto-Melanesians or Melanoids belonging to the Yueh tribe called Qiang [7]. The Qiang lived in Qiangfeng, a country to the west of Yin-Shang, Shensi and Yunnan [7-11,13].

The archaeological evidence also indicates that the Polynesians probably originated in East Asia [4,6-7,12-13]. Consequently, the Polynesian migration probably began in East Asia, not Southeast Asia. Taiwan genetically probably belongs to the early Polynesians who settled Taiwan before they expanded into outer Oceania.

Given the archaeological record of intimate contact between Proto-Polynesians and Proto-Melanoids, neither a “slow boat” or “express train” explains the genetic relationship between the Melanesian and Polynesian populations. This record makes it clear that these populations lived in intimate contact for thousands of years and during this extended period of interactions both groups probably exchanged genes.


References
1. Manfred Kayser, Oscar Lao, Kathrin Saar, Silke Brauer, Xingyu Wang, Peter Nürnberg, Ronald J. Trent, Mark Stoneking Genome-wide Analysis Indicates More Asian than Melanesian Ancestry of Polynesians. The American Journal of Human Genetics - 10 January 2008, 82 (1); pp. 194-198.

2. J. S. Fredlaender, F.R. Friedlaender, J.A. Hodgson, M. Stoltz, G. Koki, G. Horvat,S. Zhadanov, T. G. Schurr and D.A. Merriwether, Melanesian mtDNA complexity, PLoS ONE, 2(2) 2007: e248.

3 F. Weidenreich F., Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-40): p. 163.

4. Kwang-chih Chang, Archaeology of ancient China (Yale University Press, 1986) p. 64.

5. G. H. R. von Koenigswald, A giant fossil hominoid from the pleistocene of Southern China, Anthropology Pap. Am Museum of Natural History, no.43, 1952, pp. 301-309).

6. K. C. Chang, The archaeology of ancient China, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1977): p. 76

7. Winters, Clyde Ahmad, “The Far Eastern Origin of the Tamils”, Journal of Tamil Studies, no27 (June 1985), pp. 65-92.

8. K. C. Chang, Shang Civilization, (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1980) pp. 227-230.

9. C. A. Winters, The Dravido-Harappa Colonization of Central Asia, Central Asiatic Journal, (1990) 34 (1-2), pp. 120-144.

10. Y. Kan, The Bronze culture of western Yunnan, Bull. Of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo), 7 (1985), pp. 47-91.

11. S. S. Ling, A study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double, and Deck canoes of ancient China, the Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The Institute of Ethnology Academic Sinica. Nankang, Taipei Taiwan, 1970.

12. Kwang-chih Chang, “Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China”, Current Anthropology, 5 (1964): pp. 359-375: 375).

13. Winters,Clyde Ahmad, “Dravidian Settlements in ancient Polynesia”, India Past and Present 3, no2 (1986): pp. 225-241.


.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The evidence is the discovery of Negro skeletons in East Asia that fail to date to the prehistoric period. These skeleton are of Neolithic origin and leads to the inference they were recent settlers of North and later south China.

---

Where are your references to these skeletons? And why does that present a "special" case of recent African migrations to Asia? Aren't the skeletons of Papuans, Australian and other South East Asian aboriginal populations ALSO negroid? So if these people with so-called negroid features have ALWAYS been in Asia, then what is the point of claiming that such features are NEW to the region?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

I argue that the admixture of Polynesian and Melanesian took place in East Asia before the coastal Melanesians were forced to migrate to the near Oceania.


.

---

Which is ridiculous as neither Polynesian nor Pelanesian are races and the terms only date back to European arrival in the Pacific. Hence the argument is totally ridiculous, not only because of nonsensical terminology but because the basic fact is that blacks were the predominant population in South East Asia and the Pacific up until relatively recent times (last 500 years). So no RECENT arrival of blacks is necessary to explain the presence of blacks there because they have ALWAYS been there.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Just like Black and white people don't look alike the same can be said for Asians.

When I was at University in the 1970's on registration day at the U of I we would be registering students for the various student Associations. Some of my Asian friends felt uncomfrotable asking people in they were Chinese or Japanese. I belonged to the Black student organization and these students would ask me to tell them which was which. I was quite accurate with around a 87% success rate.

You purposely used a photograph of a South African and Tibetan. These two photos tell us nothing about Asian and African types.

First of all South African Blacks are very mixed. Here you find people who have ancestors that are of bushman and bantu origin. You are from South Africa and you know full well that this women is a bushman or San and not a Bantu.




Hottentot




As I mentioned earlier the Bushman created much of the early civilization of Eurasia. They left us numerous figurines showing their type.

Venus Figurines



The Bushman continue to carry this ancient form.



Rasol you are such a dishonest person. If you continue to do things like this I may lose more respect for you. I had believed that you said things out of ignorance. Now, I clearly see that like the closet Eurocentrists you are you will go to any means to hide the truth from African people shame on you.


The Tibetan area is the entrance from East Asia into India. Here you find people who are the descendants of various nationalities who have used this pathway to enter India and vise versa.


Note the Chinese and Mongolian types among these Tibetan women



The photos you publish do not in anyway dispute the facts.

I use the term classical mongoloid to make it clear that differences exist between Han/Hau people and the majority of People living in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands who have been classified as classical mongoloids.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

A simple observation of Melanesians and Aborigines make it clear that they resemble Africans moreso than Aborigines--the original settlers of Asia.

---

Simple yes, accurate no.

All you did was pick and choose your examples to support your preconceived notions.

But I can easily pick other examples which completely contradict the above.

Contemporary Africans:


Contemporay Tibitan:


Now I will teach you, if you will permit, something about the implications of your own rhetoric.

The reason you keep prefacing Mongoloid with 'classical' [actually a Eurocentric concept] is the same as the reason Eurocentrists preface negro with 'true'.

^ It helped them to evade the reality that all kinds of people could be called negroes, even where the appelation were ideologically undesirable.

Same goes for mongoloid.

These are reiffied abstractions, not actual divisions [or clades] of humanity.

The qualifier's 'true and classical' are simply built-in double talk, that allows you to either assert or deny your racial archtypes at will.

And this in turn is why pseudo-scholars [dienekes for example] love race-tautology, because they can use it to claim whatever they want.

Here then is what you've proven Dr. Winters with your "Short history of Negroid and Mongoloid":

terms like negroid, caucasoid and mongoloid are worse than useless. - CL Brace.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
All Asians do not look alike. Note the diffences between Han/Hau people and Classical Mongoloid people.


Han/Hau



Classical Mongoloids




I use the term classical mongoloid to make it clear that differences exist between Han/Hau people and the majority of People living in Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands who have been classified as classical mongoloids.


.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Originally posted by the lion:
Clyde, some questions


briefly what is the basic ancestral background of
a) Han Chinese

They originate in the mountains and appear in China around 1200 BC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

the founders of Chinese civilization were black people “min li”. The use of li, to denote Chinese tanned by the sun was the association of the tsung-jen character, with li, the ancient designation of the original founders of Chinese civilization.
In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Originally posted by the lion:
Clyde, some questions


briefly what is the basic ancestral background of
a) Han Chinese

They originate in the mountains and appear in China around 1200 BC

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

the founders of Chinese civilization were black people “min li”. The use of li, to denote Chinese tanned by the sun was the association of the tsung-jen character, with li, the ancient designation of the original founders of Chinese civilization.
In the Chinese literature the Blacks were called li-min, Kunlung, Ch'iang (Qiang), Yi and Yueh. The founders of the Xia Dynasty and the Shang Dynasties were blacks. These blacks were called Yueh and Qiang.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lion:
Clyde, what is your evidence that the Han were not descended from the Xia and Shang if that is what you are saying?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lion:
Clyde, what is your evidence that the Han were not descended from the Xia and Shang if that is what you are saying?

---

The historical documents. They declare themselves Han/Hua--not Xia. They belong to the Zhou Dynasty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lion:
Clyde, what is your evidence that the Han were not descended from the Xia and Shang if that is what you are saying?

---

The historical documents. They declare themselves Han/Hua--not Xia. They belong to the Zhou Dynasty.

---

What is their ancestry before the Zhou Dynatsy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lion:
that means they may or may not be descendants of the Xia and/or Shang, which geographically, would be likely.

-assuming that the Xia existed

-writing is not enough, there has to archaeological and anthropological information to back it up. This is lacking for the Xia.
Most of the cultural and technological advancement of the Chinese occur in the long lasting Zhou dynasty

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lion:
that means they may or may not be descendants of the Xia and/or Shang, which geographically, would be likely.

-assuming that the Xia existed

-writing is not enough, there has to archaeological and anthropological information to back it up. This is lacking for the Xia.
Most of the cultural and technological advancement of the Chinese occur in the long lasting Zhou dynasty

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If you read Chinese history--even in English--you would know that the Zhou got everything from the li min or Blacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
They declare themselves Han/Hua--not Xia. They belong to the Zhou Dynasty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
By 1200 BC the clasical mongoloids had become well established in India. Around this time they conquered the Dravidian people who founded the first Shang empire, and set up a new Shang Empire at Anyang.

---

what is your source that Dravidian people founded the Shang Empire?


-________________________________________________


The Shang dynasty 1700 BC–1046

kneeling figure, Late Shang Dynasty

_________________________________________

after the Shang Dynasty comes


the Zhou dyansty
(1066-ca. 221 BC)

exact years are uncertain, but dealing with the above dates
the Zhou defeated the Shang but that doesn't mean that they are not of the same broader ancestry and mongoloid physically. You call me ignorant but you have no idea of the ancestry of Mongolians, the very people who have a link by name to "mongoloids".

The 6th century B.C.E. is within the Zhou dynasty
That 6th century begins in 600 BC. That's four hundred and forty six years after then end of the Shang Dynasty.
It is in this period the 6th century B.C. that the major Chinese philosophers established their ideas:
Confucius,
Laozi,
Mozi,
Mencius,
Shang Yang
Han Feizi
and Xunzi
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde, as you know, we disagree on exactly who was who. My feeling is that the Zhou were Whites from central Asia.

But whether you agree or disagree with that, it cannot be denied that the Central Asian Albinos played a very big part in post Shang China.




As can be seen in this artifact, these Chinese peasants were unquestionably White people, NOT Mongoloid.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Clyde, as you know, we disagree on exactly who was who. My feeling is that the Zhou were Whites from central Asia.

But whether you agree or disagree with that, it cannot be denied that the Central Asian Albinos played a very big part in post Shang China.




As can be seen in this artifact, these Chinese peasants were unquestionably White people, NOT Mongoloid.

---

correct

.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde, I finally found some "Life-like" depictions of the Shang. They confirm that the Shang were standard-looking African types.





reign of Wen Ding - 1100 B.C.


.

The problem is then;
Who are these mongol type Black people - Huns?


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
There were two Chang Empires. The first was founded by the Dravidian speaking people. The Last Shang Empire at Anyang was founded by Classical Mongoloid people.

Mike what you have to understand is that the Chinese has rarely been an homogenous civilization especially in relation to the rulers. many groups have ruled China over the years and have left their presence--this is why they built the wall of China--but it kept no one out.

The Mandarin language has been used as a lingua franca in China, and as the language of government. It is mainly spoken around Beijing.

.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Clyde, I finally found some "Life-like" depictions of the Shang. They confirm that the Shang were standard-looking African types.





reign of Wen Ding - 1100 B.C.


.

The problem is then;
Who are these mongol type Black people - Huns?

---

 

---

Posted by MelaninKing (Member # 17444) on :
 
Dr. Winter

I'm interested in the time frame Asians began developing keen interest in human body physical attributes, medicine (Herbals, nerve and pressure points, supplements), and spirituality (Chi).

I am working an theory that Asian herbal medical discoveries and spirituality played a major role in their overcoming negative effects of low melanin, and this is what separates white Mongolians from their European counterparts inability to adapt to UV.

If you have research in this area, I appreciate you sharing it.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde, Okay I can accept two dynasties with two different ethnic people. Do you have any thoughts on the migration times and point of origin; and most importantly, the phenotype of the second dynasty. It's easy to see that they share phenotype with some San people. But the hair is a problem, the second dynasty people had straight hair, and the modern San have woolly hair. One of them obviously gained or lost an attribute, but which is which?
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde - It seems the Chinese tribe the "Di" now the "Lo Lo Den" who moved south into Vietnam the end of the first millennium, but largely in the 15th and 17th centuries. by appearance might be the descendants of the second Shang dynasty.






 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike111:
Clyde, Okay I can accept two dynasties with two different ethnic people. Do you have any thoughts on the migration times and point of origin; and most importantly, the phenotype of the second dynasty. It's easy to see that they share phenotype with some San people. But the hair is a problem, the second dynasty people had straight hair, and the modern San have woolly hair. One of them obviously gained or lost an attribute, but which is which?

---

Classical Mongoloids



Above are Classical Mongoloid children. I do not believe that they are related to the San. I believe that they are related to the Australians.
 

---

Posted by the lion (Member # 17353) on :
 
The Chinese Human Genome Diversity Project

1. L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza

+ Author Affiliations

1.
Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305

The Chinese population comprises one-fifth of the human species. The Chinese government officially recognizes 56 ethnic groups, one of which is the Han majority (1 billion and 100 million people), and the other 55 are ethnic minorities (totaling about 100 million). The latter are spread over most of China, but especially in the south. Close to half of the minorities are found in one of the 28 provinces of China, Yunnan. The distinction is primarily linguistic but corresponds closely to other cultural differences. The paper by Chu et al. published in this issue of the Proceedings (1) explores the genetic stratification of about half of the official ethnic subdivisions by means of microsatellites, a class of genetic markers recently discovered that has proved very useful for several purposes. The paper represents the collective effort of several institutes participating in the Chinese Human Genome Diversity Project (CHGDP). The broader Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) was generated in 1991 by the international Human Genome Organization (HUGO) and is regionally organized (see http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/HGDP/html). The CHGDP has started collecting cell lines from the official ethnic groups and testing their DNAs. The 56 official ethnic groups do not exhaust current Chinese diversity, as there are more than 100 languages spoken in China, but they include the most important ones.

Microsatellites are repeats of short DNA segments, practically less than five nucleotides long. They have a high mutation rate and therefore a large number of alleles, which makes them perhaps three times more informative on average than the most common type of genetic polymorphisms, single nucleotide substitutions, which are mostly biallelic. They are used very widely in genetic linkage studies and have begun to be used in evolutionary analyses (e.g., refs. 2–4). Thirty microsatellites were tested by Chu et al. (1) for reconstructing a tree of 14 East Asian populations, which were studied along with 11 populations of a standard set representing the rest of the world. A subset of 15 of the same microsatellites were used to construct a second tree from 32 East Asian populations. These include the first 14 and are compared with the same 11 populations from the rest of the world.

Bootstrap (5, 6) values (measures of reproducibility of the tree branchings, varying from 0 to 100) are high in both trees for the fewer populations outside East Asia, which are rather remote both geographically and genetically from each other. These comparisons present the greatest genetic divergence, and their analysis by tree is therefore more reproducible. Results agree closely with a previous comparable analysis (2). The comparisons among East Asian populations involve much smaller genetic differences and, as expected, bootstrap values are much smaller. Because of their closer geographic proximity they are also likely to have had a much greater reciprocal gene flow than the more distant populations from the rest of the world. Studying populations much closer geographically and genetically puts analysis by tree to a more severe test. Even so, all East Asian populations cluster together in both trees. Their nearest genetic neighbors from the rest of the world are, not surprisingly, Native Americans. A little less close genetically is the small cluster formed by Australian aborigines and New Guineans, in agreement with the fact that Australia was settled before the Americas and had more time to differentiate (7, 8).

The first outlier within the East Asian cluster of the first tree is the Cambodian branch, and the second a small cluster made of two Altaic language-speaking populations (Buryat and Yakut). These populations live not too far from China, south and north of it, respectively. The other 11 East Asians form two fairly sharp clusters. One includes four Taiwan aborigines and two Chinese ethnic minorities from the western part of the Yunnan province. The other cluster includes Korean, Manchu, Japanese, and two groups of Han (one from Yunnan and the other from the United States). Usually, most Chinese immigrants to the U.S. (and to other countries, like Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, etc.) come from southern China, and this is certainly true of the cell lines from California residents from China born in the mainland, collected by Louise Chen and Alice Lin at Stanford and used in our surveys (2, 7, 8). Han living in the south of China mostly came originally from the north, but they did so at very different times, and thus had different times for gene flow from the earlier settlers, that is the minorities. In general, there is a correlation between the average genotype for protein polymorphisms of Hans from the different provinces and of local minorities, but there are exceptions (R. Du, H. Chungtze, E. Minch, and L.L.C.-S., unpublished work).

The second tree is based on more populations but fewer microsatellites, and the bootstraps are inevitably worse in the East Asian part of the tree. Conclusions therefore must be taken with greater caution. The southern group of populations falls into three clusters. S1 contains all four Taiwan aborigines and five Yunnan ethnic minorities. S2 contains Cambodians and six ethnic minorities from various southern provinces other than Yunnan, and also Han from the province of Henan, a north-central province on the north-south boundary. S3 is the tightest cluster and is made up of only two minorities, both from western Yunnan.

The northern group of populations falls into two clusters, N1 and N2. N1 is a classical northern cluster, with Japanese, Manchu, Korean, and Siberian. The Chinese are Han from the North—the northern Chinese by definition— and Han from the Yunnan, probably late immigrants who had no time to receive gene flow from the local people. There are also the Uyghur from the Xinjang province at the extreme west of China, who received a ca. 25% genetic contribution from ancestors of European origin, showing in their genes and, albeit qualitatively, in their phenotype and dresses (9). Their mummies, the oldest of which are from 3,800 years ago, show unquestionable evidence of European origins in their physical and cultural traits. They are probably descendants of people speaking Tocharian, an extinct Indo-European language. The residual 75% of their genotype must be from admixture with neighbors: 1% gene flow per generation (a very modest quantity) would be enough to cause the level of admixture observed (8).

N2 includes four minorities. Of these minorities, Evenki live in extreme northeast China but their origin is likely to be from Siberia. Tibetans are located in the southwest, but their origin from northern China is well established historically. The other two are minorities from a northern province and a south-central one. Strangely, N2 is part of the genetic cluster that includes all three southern groups, and in fact associates in the tree with S2. This finding is unexpected and requires an explanation. Chu et al. (1) acknowledge that statistical support of the N2-S2 relationship is weak and there may be a need of a greater number of microsatellites. Another possibility is the inappropriateness of a tree to represent a situation in which there is considerable admixture of the groups. Chu et al. have used the neighbor-joining method (NJ) of tree reconstruction (10), which has practical advantages, but it is hard to agree with their statement that NJ is “supposedly more robust in the presence of genetic admixture,” except for the word “supposedly.” In fact, I believe, on the basis of considerable simulation experience, published only in very small part (4), that admixture generates tree errors with NJ more easily than with other methods that we have tested. Chu et al. mention the possibility that the populations of cluster N2 were more exposed to southern admixture (excluding Ewenki).

Chu et al. draw a number of conclusions, the most general of which is: “It is now probably safe to conclude that modern humans originated in Africa constitute the majority of the current gene pool in East Asia.” This should help refute the claim that there is a continuity of evolution from Homo erectus to modern humans in East Asia, as maintained by supporters of the multiregional hypothesis (11). The basis of this hypothesis came from paleoanthropological observations that have been criticized (12). Another stronghold of the multiregional hypothesis was the transformation of Neanderthal in modern humans in Europe, and also this has been falsified by an analysis of DNA of the Neanderthal par excellence (13).

Chu et al. strongly support the existence of a genetic difference between northern and southern Chinese, which, as mentioned in their paper, already was reached by a variety of other approaches, archeological, craniometric, and dental. The first genetic claim of this kind known to me is the demonstration of a strong difference in the frequencies of Gm markers (14). This is likely to be tied to a strong epidemiological difference. Other “classical” protein polymorphisms (blood groups, enzymes, and HLA) gave results very similar (8, 15) to those obtained with DNA markers in the present work.

Another source of information is surnames. They are transmitted like Y chromosomes and therefore may give results somewhat discrepant from those obtained by genes transmitted biparentally. Characteristics transmitted patrilinearly tend to be more highly clustered geographically than those transmitted matrilinearly like mtDNA and may be more useful on average than other DNA markers for reconstructing more ancient migrations (16).

In China surnames are particularly useful, being on average much older than in other parts of the world (15). In older times, however, some surnames were in part transmitted matrilinearly, as seems reasonable to infer from the presence of a female, or a male symbol in the characters of some older surnames, and from other more direct historical evidence. A China-U.S. team has analyzed surnames from a 1/2,000 random sample of the Chinese population, by standard techniques of population genetics, and the picture is largely superimposable on the genetic one. In fact, it is much more detailed given the magnitude of the sample and the number of “alleles” (surnames). The northern provinces are more homogeneous than the southern ones, among which three major subclusters seem fairly clear cut. The most distinct one is a group of four eastern provinces, including Shanghai. The far south is divided into two clusters. The three coastal provinces, Fujian, Guangdong, and Guangxi, form one, and the six others the rest. Tibet is not included in this analysis, for linguistic reasons. The greater geographic homogeneity of the north is shown especially by the difference between the linear regressions of the average distance between surnames on geographic distance. The slope of the northern provinces is at least four times smaller than that of the southern ones.

That the south of China is more heterogeneous than the north of China seems to be true without exception, from history to geography, ecology and culture, and now genetics. The greater heterogeneity of southern China is likely to reflect the greater geographic fragmentation of this area, resulting in greater isolation of local populations, probably mostly determined by the nature of the environment.

The surname border between north and south China is approximately intermediate between the two major rivers, the Yellow and the Yang-Tze. The discontinuity already is found in the paleolithic (17). Also neolithic developments were different and largely independent of each other in north and south China, probably for ecological reasons. Different plants and animals were domesticated. There is substantial agreement between archeological findings, genetic, and surname data.

At the end Chu et al. (1) discuss possible patterns of prehistoric expansions in East Asia, and in particular the question of whether people speaking Altaic languages originated from Middle Asia or East Asia. They give reasons why the latter seems preferable. As they acknowledge, their analysis suffers from lack of mid-Asian data. Nevertheless, their conjecture may be correct for another reason. Expansions from Africa to the rest of the world did not, or not necessarily, occur through the Middle East. When the earliest modern humans first settled the Middle East from Africa around 100,000 years ago, they had not yet developed the behavioral adaptations that helped them in their expansion out of Africa (18). They probably later abandoned the area, which was inhabited by Neanderthals around 60,000 years ago. But this is the most likely time when the major expansions of behaviorally modern human from Africa to Asia began. At least some of these may have started from nearer to the equator, perhaps from East Africa. If the European neolithic expansion can serve as a model of a much earlier one, it is useful to remember that it spread most easily along the coasts of the Mediterranean or along major rivers of central Europe. To settle Australia about 40,000 or 50,000 years ago (19), some navigation skills were necessary for crossing multiple tracts of sea (8). If such skills were already available to East Africans, the settlement of south Asia from East Africa might have begun along its southern coast, perhaps 10,000 years earlier or more (19). This would have given modern humans a chance to reach Southeast Asia fairly rapidly and from there, both Australia and East Asia, without major changes in food procurement techniques or climate adjustments. It also would favor the idea that Middle Asia was reached in the sequence Southeast Asia → East Asia → Middle Asia. From East Asia, Northeast Asia also could be reached and finally America.

It is very encouraging to see a cooperative effort of this magnitude beginning to take place in this most important part of the world, and Chu et al. are to be warmly congratulated for it. It is also important that their experience has made them aware that the number of markers must be greatly increased. This applies to practically every other paper recently published. For a long time, markers were simply not available, or difficult to study, but the situation is changing rapidly and very significantly. Bootstrap values demonstrate that large numbers of genetic markers are necessary for really solid conclusions. Variety of markers is also important (20). This shows that, in spite of the need of small amounts of DNA for PCRs, the strategy of collecting cell lines remains a necessary part of an HGDP program.

Whether one uses for research DNA extracted from blood, or other biological materials, including cell lines, there arise ethical problems that have been widely discussed. The North American Region of the HGDP has prepared a model ethical protocol (see http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/HGDP/html and ref. 21), which examines these issues in great detail. The UNESCO International Bioethics Committee’s Subcommittee on Bioethics and Population Genetics (see http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/∼macer/PG.html and ref. 22), the Committee on Human Genome Diversity convened by the U.S. National Research Council (23), and the HUGO Committee on Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (see http://hugo.gdb.org: 80/conduct.htm) all have praised the model ethical protocol, while offering their own suggestions about appropriate ethical constraints on this kind of work. These issues obviously play a crucial role in such research everywhere in the world, although the exact ethical problems and solutions may differ among cultures.
 

---

Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
 
Clyde, I don't agree on the Classical Mongoloids.

I believe that these are the original Mongoloid type.

Mohenjo-daro Priest king - 2,600 B.C.






But interestingly, they lived side-by-side with classical Africans.







 

---