Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^ Clyde do you comsider these people to be "Black Native American?"
quote:Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
quote:If the Kennewick was determined to have Native American DNA and Native Americans are browned skinned, why are you calling him white?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
2) The Kennewick skeleton proves the presence of whites before Columbus
quote:.
Originally posted by CelticWarrioress:
Quetzalcoatl,
Stop, there are no true White Native Americans. Whites don't have to stoop to the Black racist Afrocentric Black supremacists on this forum to have something to be proud of. No need to steal what belongs to Native Americans.
quote:Naia only has Native American DNA and is brown, why are we calling her Black? All Paleoindians so far have only had Native American DNA.
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:If the Kennewick was determined to have Native American DNA and Native Americans are browned skinned, why are you calling him white?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
2) The Kennewick skeleton proves the presence of whites before Columbus
quote:.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
There is a better case for the pre-Columbian presence of whites in America than what Clyde posits for Black Native Americans.
quote:There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
quote:You lose.
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/#c5eozJbpvzOVEioQ.99
quote:There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[
quote:You lose.
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/#c5eozJbpvzOVEioQ.99
quote:The two most recent papers also have evidence against any foreign population mixing with Native Americans.
Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.
quote:Skoglund, P. et al 2015 “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas,” Nature 525: 104-108
More importantly, our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian populations (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results, that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies.
. . . . .
Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
quote:News report compares the two
However, we do find that a model where Amazonians receive ancestry from the lineage leading to the Andamanese fits the data in the sense that the predicted f4-statistics are all within two standard errors of statistics computed on the empirical data (Extended Data Figs 6 and 7 and Extended Data Table 3). These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas. Although this is a formal possibility, an alternative model that we view as more plausible is that the ‘Population Y’ (after Ypykuéra, which means ‘ancestor’ in the Tupi language family spoken by the Suruí and Karitiana) that contributed Australasian-related ancestry to Amazonians was already mixed with a lineage related to First Americans at the time it reached Amazonia. When we model such a scenario, we obtain a fit for models that specify 2–85% of the ancestry of the Suruí, Karitiana and Xavante as coming from Population Y (Fig. 2). These results show that quite a high fraction of Amazonian ancestry today might be derived from Population Y. At the same time, the results constrain the fraction of Amazonian ancestry that comes from an Australasian related population (via Population Y) to a much tighter range of 1–2% (Fig. 2).
quote:
The Science results also counter the Paleoamerican model. When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
quote:You lose.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
.....
quote:
Cahokia, Illinois is the home of the largest pyramid in North America. According to Dr. Kaba Hiawatha Kemene (Dr. Booker T. Coleman) the Mississippi River was to America what the Nile River was to Africa and that there were 110 pyramids along the Mississippi. Indian "mounds" are the remnants of pyramids.
quote:The papers prove nothing. Raghavan et al. (2015) did not study ancient DNA they analyzed whole genome sequences of 31 present day individuals from the Americas. These tell us nothing about the prehistoric populations. Plus we know that other researchers have found evidence of a relationship so the study is flawed.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[
quote:You lose.
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/#c5eozJbpvzOVEioQ.99
.Exactly-- and ] ALL the African genes found in Black Native Americans can also be attributed to the 500 years of contact between Africans brought as slaves and Native Americans who were here. In logic this fallacy is called the excluded middle the choice is NOT between African genes came before Columbus OR not. The middle is African genes hybridized with Native Americans to create your Black Native Americans (BNA) a much more likely event and preferred under Occam's Razor. My White Native Americans have the exactly the same problem as yours.
2) you can sing, spin and quote suppositions BUT There is no "African-looking" Paleoindian that has anything but Native American genes-- which are the only real way to prove descent.
Further the two latest studies come to the conclusion that the Lagoa Santa ((Luzia) skulls come into the range of variation of indigenous Native Americans.
This logical error is called "circular Reasoning" where you assert as evidence something that needs be proven. You can't say all the African genes we find in "Black Native Americans" are here because Paleoindians have them. TILT You have not proven that old skulls that were said to resemble Africans, or Australians are ,in fact, African or Australian-- thus there is no proof that the first assertion is correct. BTW nowadays these skulls are said to resemble Austrralians or but no longer African.
There a later paper by Chatters in which he no longer speculates but rather clearly states that Paleoindians developed in situ and did not need a separate ancestry
Chatters, J.C. et al 2014 “Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and
mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans,” Science 344: 6750-754
quote:The two most recent papers also have evidence against any foreign population mixing with Native Americans.
Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.
Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
sciencemag.org/content/early/recent /23 July 2015 / Page 1-20 / 10.1126/science.aab3884
quote:Skoglund, P. et al 2015 “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas,” Nature 525: 104-108
More importantly, our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian populations (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results, that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies.
. . . . .
Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
quote:News report compares the two
However, we do find that a model where Amazonians receive ancestry from the lineage leading to the Andamanese fits the data in the sense that the predicted f4-statistics are all within two standard errors of statistics computed on the empirical data (Extended Data Figs 6 and 7 and Extended Data Table 3). These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas. Although this is a formal possibility, an alternative model that we view as more plausible is that the ‘Population Y’ (after Ypykuéra, which means ‘ancestor’ in the Tupi language family spoken by the Suruí and Karitiana) that contributed Australasian-related ancestry to Amazonians was already mixed with a lineage related to First Americans at the time it reached Amazonia. When we model such a scenario, we obtain a fit for models that specify 2–85% of the ancestry of the Suruí, Karitiana and Xavante as coming from Population Y (Fig. 2). These results show that quite a high fraction of Amazonian ancestry today might be derived from Population Y. At the same time, the results constrain the fraction of Amazonian ancestry that comes from an Australasian related population (via Population Y) to a much tighter range of 1–2% (Fig. 2).
Balter, M. 2015 “New mystery for Native American origins,” Science 349: 354-355./
quote:
The Science results also counter the Paleoamerican model. When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
quote:Clyde,
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[
The papers prove nothing. Raghavan et al. (2015) did not study ancient DNA they analyzed whole genome sequences of 31 present day individuals from the Americas. These tell us nothing about the prehistoric populations. Plus we know that other researchers have found evidence of a relationship so the study is flawed.
.
quote:
The first article in Science, “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans” by Raghaven et al published this week provides the following summary ...):
How and when the Americas were populated remains contentious. Using ANCIENT and modern genome-wide data, we find that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Athabascans and Amerindians, entered the Americas as a single migration wave from Siberia no earlier than 23 thousand years ago (KYA), and after no more than 8,000-year isolation period in Beringia. Following their arrival to the Americas, ancestral Native Americans diversified into two basal genetic branches around 13 KYA, one that is now dispersed across North and South America and the other is restricted to North America. Subsequent gene flow resulted in some Native Americans sharing ancestry with present-day East Asians (including Siberians) and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. Putative ‘Paleoamerican’ relict populations, including the historical Mexican Pericúes and South American Fuego-Patagonians, are not directly related to modern Australo-Melanesians as suggested by the Paleoamerican Model.
. . . . .
The researchers also state that they utilized 17 specimens from relict groups such as the Pericues from Mexico and Fuego-Patagonians from the southernmost tip of South America. They also sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from the Sierra Tarahumara in northern Mexico. In total, 23 ancient samples from the Americas were utilized.
They then compared these results with a reference panel of 3053 individuals from 169 populations which included the ancient Saqqaq Greenland individual at 400 years of age as well as the Anzick child from Montana from about 12,500 years ago and the Mal’ta child from Siberia at 24,000 years of age.
quote:
The researchers suggest that the variance in the strength of this Oceanic signal suggests that the introduction of the Australo-Melanese occurred after the initial peopling of the Americas. The ancient samples cluster with the Native American groups and do not show the Oceanic markers and show no evidence of gene flow from Oceana.
The researchers also included cranial morphology analysis, which I am omitting since cranial morphology seems to have led researchers astray in the past, specifically in the case of Kennewick man.
One of the reasons cranial morphology is such a hotly debated topic is because of the very high degree of cranial variance found in early skeletal remains. One of the theories evolving from the cranial differences involving the populating of the Americans has been that the Australo-Melanese were part of a separate and earlier migration that gave rise to the earliest Americans who were then later replaced by the Asian ancestors of current day Native Americans. If this were the case, then the now-extinct Fuego-Patagonains samples from the location furthest south on the South American land mass should have included DNA from Oceana, but it didn’t.[QUOTE/]
You say others disagree-- please post exact quotes with full references of the peer reviewed articles that disagree.
Meanwhile, where are the African genes in these ancient cases?
Skoglund, P. et al 2015 “Genetic evidence for two founding population of the Americas,” Nature 525: 104-108
[QUOTE]Table S6
population Age BP mtDNA
Pericue 800-300 B2g1,CZ,B2g1,C1c1,
CZ,B2g1
Mummies >500 C,C1b
Fuego-Patagonia 132 D4h3a,D4h3a,D4h3a,D1g,D4h3a
Kaweskar
Fuego-Patagonia ~200 D4h3a,C1b,D1g5
Fuego-Patagonia ~200 D4h3a,Dh43a,C1b
Selknam
Enoque65 3635-3483 A2e
Chinchorro 5922-5765 A2
MARC1492 258-516 Aq+(64)
939 6260-5890 D4h3a7
quote:Burrow's cave find. As usual albinos try to deny the authenticity...
Originally posted by Mike111:
Lion, do you have any info. on this piece?
i.e. where, when, found: how old is it, which tribe it represents.
quote:A black man discovers an important ancient cave dweliing and this is the thanks he get, damn
Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Burrow's cave find. As usual albinos try to deny the authenticity...
Originally posted by Mike111:
Lion, do you have any info. on this piece?
i.e. where, when, found: how old is it, which tribe it represents.
quote:You're supposed to be a pro? Hah!
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
Originally posted by Mike111:
^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
quote:
"Using ancient DNA, we were able to show that Kennewick Man is more closely related to Native Americans than any other population," Dr. Morten Rasmussen, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and an author of the study, said in a written statement.
quote:
There was not enough information to assign Kennewick Man to a particular Native American tribe, but the researchers discovered that Kennewick Man was closely related to members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington.
quote:Are you in denial?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:A black man discovers an important ancient cave dweliing and this is the thanks he get, damn
Originally posted by IronLion:
quote:Burrow's cave find. As usual albinos try to deny the authenticity...
Originally posted by Mike111:
Lion, do you have any info. on this piece?
i.e. where, when, found: how old is it, which tribe it represents.
quote:Although this is their conclusion, the findings in the article reveal a different story. They contradict themselves throughout in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,” http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280841721_Genomic_evidence_for_the_Pleistocene_and_recent_population_history_of_Native_Americans
The data presented here are consistent with a single initial
migration of all Native Americans and with later gene
flow from sources related to East Asians and, more distantly,
Australo-Melanesians. From that single migration, there
was a diversification of ancestral Native Americans leading
to the formation of ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ branches,
which appears to have taken place ca. 13 KYA within the
Americas.
quote:
” We, therefore, sequenced 17 ancient individuals affiliated to the now-extinct Pericúes from Mexico and FuegoPatagonians from Chile and Argentina (28), who, on the basis of their distinctive skull morphologies, are claimed to be relicts of Paleoamericans (23, 27, 58, 59). Additionally, we sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from northern Mexico (Sierra Tarahumara) to serve as morphological controls, since they are expected to fall within the range of Native American morphological cranial variation (28). We found that the ancient samples cluster with other Native American groups and are outside the range of Oceanian genetic variation (28) (Fig. 5 and figs. S32, S33, and S34). Similarly, outgroup f3 statistics (47) reveal low shared genetic ancestry between the ancient samples and Oceanians (28) (Figs. S36, S37), and genome-based and masked SNP chip genotype data-based D-statistics (46, 47) show no evidence for gene flow from Oceanians into the Pericúes or FuegoPatagonians (28) (fig. S39).”
quote:This statement is double speech, the authors declare that there is ” no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas “ ; while in the same “paragraph the authors say ” We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population “. If the “craniometric affinities [are] with populations from Africa and Australia “, this is support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas, and directly contradict what the authors have written.
Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results (24) that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and AustraloMelanesian cranial morphologies. We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population (fig. S41). The results of analyses based on craniometric data are, thus, highly sensitive to sample structure and the statistical approach and data filtering used (51). Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide
no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
quote:In conclusion, Raghaven et al, argue that there is continuity between the contemporary and modern Native American populations but the evidence they present for this hypothesis fails to support this hypothesis. It appears that the craniometrics evidence and genetic evidence does not agree, and the contemporary and modern Native Americans represent distinct populations as suggested by Neves.
We found that some American populations, including the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans,such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig.S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such as Aeta (fig. S10). We acknowledge that this observation is based on the analysis of a small fraction of the whole genome and SNP chip genotype datasets, especially for the
Aleutian Islander data that is heavily masked due to recent admixture with Europeans (28), and that the trends in the data are weak.
Nonetheless, if it proves correct, these results suggest there may be a distant Old World signal related to AustraloMelanesians and East Asians in some Native Americans. The widely scattered and differential affinity of Native Americans to the Australo-Melanesians, ranging from a strong signal in the Surui to much weaker signal in northern Amerindians such as Ojibwa, points to this gene flow occurring after the initial peopling by Native American ancestors.
quote:You're supposed to be a pro? Hah!
Originally posted by ausar:
[
quote:
"Using ancient DNA, we were able to show that Kennewick Man is more closely related to Native Americans than any other population," Dr. Morten Rasmussen, a researcher at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and an author of the study, said in a written statement.
quote:[/QB][/QUOTE]
There was not enough information to assign Kennewick Man to a particular Native American tribe, but the researchers discovered that Kennewick Man was closely related to members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington.
quote:Clyde, what are you afraid to answer this ??
Originally posted by the lioness,:
^^ Clyde do you comsider these people to be "Black Native American?"
quote:What a humorless bunch. Don't you see it's didactic experiment. I'm making the same arguments as Winters has been making for years, but actually with better evidence. Strange none of you has been calling him for dissing Indians-- or pointed out the logical errors- like "excluded Middle" or "circular reasoning" The claim I made for Kennewick man is IDENTICAL to what has been made for Naia or Luzia with regard to Black Native Americans. Why don't people here apply the same rigor that you are making to verify the evidence for WNA to check out the many many Winters's quotes that are phony?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Quetzalcoatl you messed up with this"white" thread and dissed the Indians, you need to do a retraction and quit this thread
quote:He added that
Just a quick recap, I processed the raw data for Clovis-Anzick-1 and uploaded into GEDMatch and to my surprise, there are matches as near as 3rd to 4th cousins. Now, that's a real problem because, the matches are to a DNA sample older than 12500 years. This is practically impossible and very mysterious.[/img] I will investigate step-by-step and see what are all the possibilities and failure points, which could solve the problem. But before that, we need to be absolutely sure that these matches are indeed valid. From the matches, I requested for phased kit and I indeed got one - Thanks to Mario Diaz and Veronica.
See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick
quote:As you can see the DNA is not always a clear marker of actual ancient events.
Clearly, an IBD segment of 5 cM above 500 SNPs with total IBD segments around 10+ cM cannot be 12500 years old. This is a fact and can be verified using known relationships in families and DNA companies are using these benchmarks all along for showing genetic matches. This fact is more than enough to conclude that the Clovis-Anzick-1 sample is not actually ancient. My best guess is, the infant boy's sample is just from the last century and it was wrongly labeled as 12500 years old or the sample got contaminated.
See: http://www.fi.id.au/search/label/Anzick
quote:two wrongs don't make a right, even as rhertoric
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:What a humorless bunch. Don't you see it's didactic experiment. I'm making the same arguments as Winters has been making for years, but actually with better evidence. Strange none of you has been calling him for dissing Indians-- or pointed out the logical errors- like "excluded Middle" or "circular reasoning" The claim I made for Kennewick man is IDENTICAL to what has been made for Naia or Luzia with regard to Black Native Americans. Why don't people here apply the same rigor that you are making to verify the evidence for WNA to check out the many many Winters's quotes that are phony?
Originally posted by the lioness,:
Quetzalcoatl you messed up with this"white" thread and dissed the Indians, you need to do a retraction and quit this thread
quote:No. It is not dissing Amerindians since the Aztecs, my specialty, were without a doubt cannibals. And my quote was not just a hypothetical because we know that is what happened to some Spaniards that were shipwrecked
Originally posted by ausar:
No different than when he dissed AmerInds decades
ago saying they'd've killed cooked and ate Africans
appearing on the Americas shores.
Yup, he put his white sheet on when he broached this thread.
quote:And they were not even Aztecs
If, perchance, some Africans had landed in the New World, rather than being regarded as gods they would probably have been sacrificed and eaten. All but the first Viking expeditions were planned, but they were repelled and driven off by the natives. The fate of unplanned expeditions would have been even worse. Davies (1979:248) points to a known instance in which "a Spanish boat with sixteen men and two women on board was wrecked on the coast of Yucatan six years before Cortés arrived; the crew were all sacrificed and ritually eaten, with the exception of Gonzalo Guerrero and Jerónimo de Aguilar who were instead enslaved by two local chieftains. Of these survivors, Guerrero had gone so far native that he adorned himself with the accoutrements of his adopted tribe, including elaborate nose plugs and earrings, and refused on any account to abandon his new life to join Cortés; even Aguilar, when first found by the Spaniards, had become indistinguishable from an Indian. Survivors of accidental landings are much more likely to adopt the local culture than to spread their own."
quote:The Pacific coast were a mixture of mongoloid and Pacific Island negro Native Americans.
“Despite this similarity, Anzick-1 and Kennewick Man have dissimilar genetic affinities to contemporary Native Americans. In particular, we find that Anzick-1 is more closely related to Central/Southern Native Americans than is Kennewick Man (Extended Data Fig. 5). The pattern observed in Kennewick Man is mirrored in the Colville, who also show a high affinity with Southern populations (Fig. 2c), but are most closely related to a neighbouring population in the data set (Stswecem’c; Extended Data Fig. 4c).”
The authors also noted that:
“However, the genetic affinities of Kennewick Man reveal additional complexity in the population history of the Northern lineage. The finding that Kennewick is more closely related to Southern than many Northern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4) suggests the presence of an additional Northern lineage that diverged from the common ancestral population of Anzick-1 and Southern Native Americans (Fig. 3). This branch would include both Colville and other tribes of the Pacific Northwest such as the Stswecem’c, who also appear symmetric to Kennewick with Southern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4).”
quote:
Although our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.
Arikara
quote:Clyde here we have, not an illustration but a photograph, for the sake of the readers,
Originally posted by the lioness,:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]
^^ Clyde do you comsider these people to be "Black Native American?"
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:No. It is not dissing Amerindians since the Aztecs, my specialty, were without a doubt cannibals. And my quote was not just a hypothetical because we know that is what happened to some Spaniards that were shipwrecked
Originally posted by ausar:
No different than when he dissed AmerInds decades
ago saying they'd've killed cooked and ate Africans
appearing on the Americas shores.
Yup, he put his white sheet on when he broached this thread.
quote:And they were not even Aztecs
If, perchance, some Africans had landed in the New World, rather than being regarded as gods they would probably have been sacrificed and eaten. All but the first Viking expeditions were planned, but they were repelled and driven off by the natives. The fate of unplanned expeditions would have been even worse. Davies (1979:248) points to a known instance in which "a Spanish boat with sixteen men and two women on board was wrecked on the coast of Yucatan six years before Cortés arrived; the crew were all sacrificed and ritually eaten, with the exception of Gonzalo Guerrero and Jerónimo de Aguilar who were instead enslaved by two local chieftains. Of these survivors, Guerrero had gone so far native that he adorned himself with the accoutrements of his adopted tribe, including elaborate nose plugs and earrings, and refused on any account to abandon his new life to join Cortés; even Aguilar, when first found by the Spaniards, had become indistinguishable from an Indian. Survivors of accidental landings are much more likely to adopt the local culture than to spread their own."
quote:As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people.
This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
quote:More quotes from this same article that clarify what the actual researchers had in mind.
Originally posted by IronLion:
"The Americas were the last great frontier to be settled by humans, and their peopling remains one of the great mysteries for researchers. This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia."
- Science July 2015
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
quote:in disagreement.”
The team [BOM the Science]examined the genetic differences among their samples to determine how long ago various populations diverged, using the ancient genomes to calibrate this DNA clock. They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now drowned land of Beringia. After a stop of up to 8000 years in Beringia—slightly shorter than some researchers have suggested—Science, 28 February
2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago ...
.. .
When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
They [BOM the Nature team] found that some Amazonians, including the Surui people, shared about 1% to 2% of their ancestry with present-day native people from Australia, New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands. Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent geneticcontribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas.
And yet Reich says his data, like those of the Science team, clash with the classic Paleoamerican model, which postulates a major, more direct genetic contribution from Australo-Melanesians. In that sense, Reich says, “the two papers are not
quote:Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people.
This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
quote:Stop talking about the Review article, you can find the actual paper here: Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,” http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280841721_Genomic_evidence_for_the_Pleistocene_and_recent_population_history_of_Native_Americans
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:More quotes from this same article that clarify what the actual researchers had in mind.
Originally posted by IronLion:
"The Americas were the last great frontier to be settled by humans, and their peopling remains one of the great mysteries for researchers. This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia."
- Science July 2015
http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away
quote:in disagreement.”
The team [BOM the Science]examined the genetic differences among their samples to determine how long ago various populations diverged, using the ancient genomes to calibrate this DNA clock. They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now drowned land of Beringia. After a stop of up to 8000 years in Beringia—slightly shorter than some researchers have suggested—Science, 28 February
2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago ...
.. .
When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
They [BOM the Nature team] found that some Amazonians, including the Surui people, shared about 1% to 2% of their ancestry with present-day native people from Australia, New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands. Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent geneticcontribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas.
And yet Reich says his data, like those of the Science team, clash with the classic Paleoamerican model, which postulates a major, more direct genetic contribution from Australo-Melanesians. In that sense, Reich says, “the two papers are not
quote:As usual outdated information, deliberate obfuscation and lots of ink
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Bernard Ortiz de Motellano you are a white supremacist and racist. You bring here lies to deny the history of the Black Native Americans.
Racist Montellano genotype and craniometrics complement each other. The fact remains that Naia's DNA was contaminated and Kennewick man carries the African haplogroup X. Moreover Kennewick man is more related to Africans, Andamanese and Melanesians, rather than mongoloid Native Americans craniometrically and genetically.
Racist Bernard Ortiz Montellano your white supremacist ideas about the inability of Blacks to travel to America will not be accepted here. Racist Montellano stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
quote:You know full-well that you are lying when you deliberately claim that haplogroup X is in Africa, when the haplogroup found in Kennewick was X2a which only exists in the New World.
We took precautions to minimize contamination from exogenousDNA [see the supplementary materials (SM) in (2)] and conducted several analyses to assess whether the extracted DNA exhibited expected characteristics of ancient DNA(aDNA) and to confirm haplogroup D1. We made the following observations: (i) this haplogroup was not detected in negative controls; . . . .) (iii) failure to generate X- and Y-chromosome amplicons; ( iv) AluI site loss at nucleotide position (np) 5176, diagnostic of haplogroup D, was confirmed through intra- and interlaboratory replication using three DNA extractions; and (v) hypervariable region sequences from all three extracts yielded differences from the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence(3) consistent with membership in haplogroup D1.
Collectively, these observations are consistent with a low copy number and a highly degraded DNA sample, characteristics expected from aDNA (4). Moreover, our results make phylogenetic sense (5).
. . . . . . .
If the Hoyo Negro mtDNA results represent contamination, its source is unknown. Because DNA analysis was a key objective of the study, extreme caution was used in sample recovery and transport. Haplogroup D1 is also absent among the collection and laboratory teams. Finally, all samples were submerged in 6% sodium hypochlorite before extraction, a reliable means of surface decontamination (11). The putative contamination could have originated from laboratory reagents, but the reagents used by each laboratory originated from separate lot numbers. Although contamination could affect multiple lots, the probability of observing haplogroup D1 contamination in three independent extracts at two laboratories is low, though not zero.
Although it might never be possible to authenticate aDNA from humans with absolute certainty (1), investigators have offered a variety of recommendations for properly conducting this type of research [e.g., (4, 5, 12)]. Prüfer and Meyer’s (1) suggestion is that the authentication of human aDNA should hinge on the presence of hallmark damage signatures (9, 13). However, it is premature to rely so heavily on such damage patterns without a greater appreciation of the variance expected across samples from different environments. Furthermore, although decades of research have suggested that contaminant DNA will be more intact than aDNA, recent work brings this assumption into question (9) and demonstrates that contamination can also take on forms of damage expected of aDNA (14). We, therefore, still regard independent replication as an important criterion for authentication in human ancient DNA studies, despite the recent trend of ignoring this criterion.
quote:as usual you misstate the true state of the affairs (or perhaps you are not up-to-date). This from the abstract where the authors write down their conclusions in the paper.
It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close relatives in the entire Old World, including Siberia. The position of X2a in the phylogenetic tree suggests an early split from the other X2 clades, likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East.
quote:So there is a world wide conspiracy by the leading iights of population research to deny Dravidians their African roots-- any evidence exempt that this would not support your hobby horse?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people.
This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
.
quote:Yes. Northern East Indians are mainly hindutva (Hindu Nationalists), who are trying to claim that they have always been in India; eventhough they only arrive in India in 1200 BC, using Grey Pottery. Lead by Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Hindutva geneticists are attempting to use genetics to re-write the history of India.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:So there is a world wide conspiracy by the leading iights of population research to deny Dravidians their African roots-- any evidence exempt that this would not support your hobby horse?
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people.
This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
.
You know full well that 1)what you sent in were NOT articles but letters of comment on someone else's paper in that journal, 2) you also know that these type of communication are Not peer reviewed. Searching this group will bring out the letters I got from these journals affirming my point.
Again what is your citation rate in google scholar, what is the impact rating of the open-source journals you publish in?
quote:Winters, C. 2008 “Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers,” Int J Hum Genet, 8(4): 325-329
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:So there is a world wide conspiracy by the leading iights of population research to deny Dravidians their African roots-- any evidence exempt that this would not support your hobby horse?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people.
This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
.
You know full well that 1)what you sent in were NOT articles but letters of comment on someone else's paper in that journal, 2) you also know that these type of communication are Not peer reviewed. Searching this group will bring out the letters I got from these journals affirming my point.
Again what is your citation rate in google scholar, what is the impact rating of the open-source journals you publish in? [/QUOTE
]Yes. Northern East Indians are mainly hindutva (Hindu Nationalists), who are trying to claim that they have always been in India; eventhough they only arrive in India in 1200 BC, using Grey Pottery. Lead by Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Hindutva geneticists are attempting to use genetics to re-write the history of India.
.
quote:This is about 3000 B.C. which one is correct?
evidences suggest that the Dravidian speakers formerly lived in Nubia and migrated to India over 5000 years ago.
quote:Whites were the first race to lay claim to the achievements and heritage of others, not Afrocentrics. Whites have tried to claim to every civilization they came across. These attempts at appropriation were/are maintained in the mainstream, while only a fringe group of Afrocentrics engage in the same despicable kind of behaviour.
Originally posted by CelticWarrioress:
Quetzalcoatl,
Stop, there are no true White Native Americans. Whites don't have to stoop to the Black racist Afrocentric Black supremacists on this forum to have something to be proud of. No need to steal what belongs to Native Americans.
quote:They fake the data on the Dravidians using Bayesian statistics without any archaeological or craniometric evidence to support the statistics.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Winters, C. 2008 “Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers,” Int J Hum Genet, 8(4): 325-329
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:So there is a world wide conspiracy by the leading iights of population research to deny Dravidians their African roots-- any evidence exempt that this would not support your hobby horse?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people.
This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
.
You know full well that 1)what you sent in were NOT articles but letters of comment on someone else's paper in that journal, 2) you also know that these type of communication are Not peer reviewed. Searching this group will bring out the letters I got from these journals affirming my point.
Again what is your citation rate in google scholar, what is the impact rating of the open-source journals you publish in? [/QUOTE
]Yes. Northern East Indians are mainly hindutva (Hindu Nationalists), who are trying to claim that they have always been in India; eventhough they only arrive in India in 1200 BC, using Grey Pottery. Lead by Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Hindutva geneticists are attempting to use genetics to re-write the history of India.
.
quote:This is about 3000 B.C. which one is correct?
evidences suggest that the Dravidian speakers formerly lived in Nubia and migrated to India over 5000 years ago.
Why would the following and practically all the population geneticists lie about the Dravidians: Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors.
Why would they lie about Africa and the Paleoindians?
How would they fake the data?
quote:Winters, C. 2008 “Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers,” Int J Hum Genet, 8(4): 325-329
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. [/QUOTE ]
Yes. Northern East Indians are mainly hindutva (Hindu Nationalists), who are trying to claim that they have always been in India; eventhough they only arrive in India in 1200 BC, using Grey Pottery. Lead by Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Hindutva geneticists are attempting to use genetics to re-write the history of India.
.
quote:This is about 3000 B.C. which one is correct?
evidences suggest that the Dravidian speakers formerly lived in Nubia and migrated to India over 5000 years ago.
quote:How exactly are they using Bayesian statistics, which deal with probabilities to fake the data which consists of the four bases (A,C,G,T) and their sequence in the DNA?
They fake the data on the Dravidians using Bayesian statistics without any archaeological or craniometric evidence to support the statistics.
I already illustrated above that they use double speech to create the myth that there was continuity between paleoamericans and modern mongoloid Native Americans. [/QB]
quote:The Indo-Aryan speakers entered India 1200 BC.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Winters, C. 2008 “Origin and Spread of Dravidian Speakers,” Int J Hum Genet, 8(4): 325-329
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. [/QUOTE ]
Yes. Northern East Indians are mainly hindutva (Hindu Nationalists), who are trying to claim that they have always been in India; eventhough they only arrive in India in 1200 BC, using Grey Pottery. Lead by Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Hindutva geneticists are attempting to use genetics to re-write the history of India.
.
quote:This is about 3000 B.C. which one is correct?
evidences suggest that the Dravidian speakers formerly lived in Nubia and migrated to India over 5000 years ago.
Why would the following and practically all the population geneticists lie about the Dravidians: Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors.
Why would they lie about Africa and the Paleoindians?
How would they fake the data?[b]quote:How exactly are they using Bayesian statistics, which deal with probabilities to fake the data which consists of the four bases (A,C,G,T) and their sequence in the DNA?
They fake the data on the Dravidians using Bayesian statistics without any archaeological or craniometric evidence to support the statistics.
I already illustrated above that they use double speech to create the myth that there was continuity between paleoamericans and modern mongoloid Native Americans.
Why would Hindus convince the world authorities on population genetics to lie about the roots of Native Americans?
Did the Dravidians go to India 1200 B.C. or more than 3000 B.C.? [/QB]
quote:You are right. At the beginning of the 20th century people like Grafton Smith Pushed the idea that white Egyptians had gone all over the world and started civilizations.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:Whites were the first race to lay claim to the achievements and heritage of others, not Afrocentrics. Whites have tried to claim to every civilization they came across. These attempts at appropriation were/are maintained in the mainstream, while only a fringe group of Afrocentrics engage in the same despicable kind of behaviour.
Originally posted by CelticWarrioress:
Quetzalcoatl,
Stop, there are no true White Native Americans. Whites don't have to stoop to the Black racist Afrocentric Black supremacists on this forum to have something to be proud of. No need to steal what belongs to Native Americans.
quote:They were wrong then and they are wrong today.
Van Sertima (1976:156-62; 1995:86-87) continues to claim that the Egyptians brought mummification to the New World. His only sources for this claim are the discredited hyperdiffusionist authors of the early 20th century, whom he quotes from Mackenzie (1923). All of his citations except for those that refer to Palenque ultimately derive from Grafton Elliot Smith, a prolific hyperdiffusionist who believed that all civilization derived from Egypt, or his disciple W, J. Perry (see n. 7). Elliot Smith proposed that this "Heliolithic" culture had first spread to Asia and was taken from there to America. The diffusion of mummification from Egypt to the rest of the world was central to his thesis. This thesis was thoroughly demolished in 1928 by Roland B. Dixon's The Building of Cultures (Wauchope 1962:21-25; Davies 1979:159-60) - a problem that Van Sertima ignores.
note 7 says:
This is a revised version of the old "Heliolithic hypothesis" that was so popular among racialist scholars in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In essence, its proponents believed that civilization arose only once, in a "white" ancient Egypt, and diffused from there to the other parts of the world. They also believed that the "non-Caucasian" peoples of the world were incapable of creating their own "advanced civilizations" because of their alleged biological inferiority (Elliot Smith 1915, 1923, 1929; Perry 1923, 1937; Massey 1907; Churchward 1913, 1921). It is curious that this hypothesis has resurfaced in the late 20th century in revised form, with the biologically superior people now being identified as "blacks" (see Ortiz de Montellano 1993).
.
quote:I'm working on this question on another thread
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Quetzalcoatl:
Aren't you the same person that claimed that modern Egyptians are representative of the ancients and that the only black people in Egypt were the ones that bordered Sudan? We now know this to be false. Genetic evidence has demonstrated this to be false. The only people in Egypt that can be associated with dynastic Egypt are the people in the South. The people of Upper Egypt are not distinct from North Sudanese. In fact:
Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Pre-colonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
The people of Upper Egypt were the overwhelming majority in ancient Egypt; they united the two lands, they constituted the majority of the indigenous dynasties and priestly class.
What does it matter if there was a minority of others that settled in northern Egypt and mixed with the local black population there?
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
quote:What is it that you're supposedly working on? The verdict is out -- the ancient Egyptians are linguistically, culturally, genetically and anatomically related to other Africans in North-east Africa and have a common origin with these people, not with Europeans or western Asians.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:I'm working on this question on another thread
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Quetzalcoatl:
Aren't you the same person that claimed that modern Egyptians are representative of the ancients and that the only black people in Egypt were the ones that bordered Sudan? We now know this to be false. Genetic evidence has demonstrated this to be false. The only people in Egypt that can be associated with dynastic Egypt are the people in the South. The people of Upper Egypt are not distinct from North Sudanese. In fact:
Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Pre-colonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
The people of Upper Egypt were the overwhelming majority in ancient Egypt; they united the two lands, they constituted the majority of the indigenous dynasties and priestly class.
What does it matter if there was a minority of others that settled in northern Egypt and mixed with the local black population there?
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010486 but my primary interest is in the New World.
quote:Primarily my interest is to protect the history and legacy of New World indians from claims that they owe their origin and/or their development to other superior civilizations or peoples--Africans (Egyptian or Mande),Chinese, Roman, Irish, the Continent of Mu, Atlantis Carthaginians Phoenicians,Japanese, 10 lost tribes of Israel, several world-wide Lost Civizations, aliens, etc.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:What is it that you're supposedly working on? The verdict is out -- the ancient Egyptians are linguistically, culturally, genetically and anatomically related to other Africans in North-east Africa and have a common origin with these people, not with Europeans or western Asians.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:I'm working on this question on another thread
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Quetzalcoatl:
Aren't you the same person that claimed that modern Egyptians are representative of the ancients and that the only black people in Egypt were the ones that bordered Sudan? We now know this to be false. Genetic evidence has demonstrated this to be false. The only people in Egypt that can be associated with dynastic Egypt are the people in the South. The people of Upper Egypt are not distinct from North Sudanese. In fact:
Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Pre-colonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
The people of Upper Egypt were the overwhelming majority in ancient Egypt; they united the two lands, they constituted the majority of the indigenous dynasties and priestly class.
What does it matter if there was a minority of others that settled in northern Egypt and mixed with the local black population there?
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010486 but my primary interest is in the New World.
They do not descend from western Asians or Europeans, so what exactly are you still grappling with?
quote:I understand that you are defending the history and heritage of Mesoamericans from the likes of Clyde Winters and Mike and I respect that immensely and support it unconditionally... but why must you then try to take ancient Egypt out of its African context. There is no evidence that they came from Eurasia. The opposite is true.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Primarily my interest is to protect the history and legacy of New World indians from claims that they owe their origin and/or their development to other superior civilizations or peoples--Africans (Egyptian or Mande),Chinese, Roman, Irish, the Continent of Mu, Atlantis Carthaginians Phoenicians,Japanese, 10 lost tribes of Israel, several world-wide Lost Civizations, aliens, etc.
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:What is it that you're supposedly working on? The verdict is out -- the ancient Egyptians are linguistically, culturally, genetically and anatomically related to other Africans in North-east Africa and have a common origin with these people, not with Europeans or western Asians.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:I'm working on this question on another thread
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Quetzalcoatl:
Aren't you the same person that claimed that modern Egyptians are representative of the ancients and that the only black people in Egypt were the ones that bordered Sudan? We now know this to be false. Genetic evidence has demonstrated this to be false. The only people in Egypt that can be associated with dynastic Egypt are the people in the South. The people of Upper Egypt are not distinct from North Sudanese. In fact:
Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Pre-colonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
The people of Upper Egypt were the overwhelming majority in ancient Egypt; they united the two lands, they constituted the majority of the indigenous dynasties and priestly class.
What does it matter if there was a minority of others that settled in northern Egypt and mixed with the local black population there?
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=010486 but my primary interest is in the New World.
They do not descend from western Asians or Europeans, so what exactly are you still grappling with?
Basically I'm opposed to hyperdiffusionism in any form. I'm opposed to Meggers and travelers from Jomon, Menzies and the Chinese, Hancock etc. Over the years, in "thehallofmaat' I've posted on any number of hyperdiffusionists. The Olmecs and the cultures of Mesoamerica are independent creations and did not need some "superior" to teach them ,, agriculture, mathematics, pyramid building or anything. I am very critical of any such proposal regardless of the color of their skin, white, black, yellow, or green. Thus a lot of the "evidence" that Van Sertima use in his book came from the racist Europeans of the 1890--1925 or so. The evidence was and is now baloney whether these
and it was racist of Europeans to claim "White" Egyptians were superior to Native Americans and it is equally racist to claim that "Black" Egyptians were superior to Native Americans. This is so since the evidence is paltry. I am still trying to get members of this forum to see why the logic and my "evidence" for WNA is wrong and THEN see that the logic and evidence for BNA is equally flawed.
quote:I have no problem with what you write. I certainly don't think Egypt is not in Africa and I am repulsed by the offensive and racist Hamitic theory: from Wikipedia
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I understand that you are defending the history and heritage of Mesoamericans from the likes of Clyde Winters and Mike and I respect that immensely and support it unconditionally... but why must you then try to take ancient Egypt out of its African context. There is no evidence that they came from Eurasia. The opposite is true.
Don't you realise that you are doing the same thing [misappropriation] when you try to take ancient Egypt out of its black African context?
I am a North African and this is my heritage:
quote:However, I don't understand the repeated statement, which I'm involved in another thread, that modern Egyptians are different from the Ancient Egyptians. As a North African, how do you feel when these statements are made.? Does that not in a way deny your right to this heritage? Is it that modern Egyptians are not black enough?
According to the Hamitic theory, this "Hamitic race" was superior to or more advanced than Negroid populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. In its most extreme form, in the writings of C. G. Seligman, this theory asserted that virtually all significant achievements in African history were the work of "Hamites" who migrated into central Africa as pastoralists, bringing new customs, languages, technologies and administrative skills with them. In the early 20th century, theoretical models of Hamitic languages and of Hamitic races were intertwined.
quote:Quetzalcoatl - Are you in control of your faculties?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
However, I don't understand the repeated statement, which I'm involved in another thread, that modern Egyptians are different from the Ancient Egyptians. As a North African, how do you feel when these statements are made.? Does that not in a way deny your right to this heritage? Is it that modern Egyptians are not black enough?
quote:It's not just me saying it:
Originally posted by Mike111:
Modern North Africans, Arabs, and Middle Easterners are mainly Turk Mulattoes, having very little to do ethnically and genetically with Ancient Egyptians.
quote:It's ridiculous to quote someone from 1850's as an authority on these topics.
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:It's not just me saying it:
Originally posted by Mike111:
Modern North Africans, Arabs, and Middle Easterners are mainly Turk Mulattoes, having very little to do ethnically and genetically with Ancient Egyptians.
We quote the eminent François Auguste Ferdinand Mariette (1821 – 1881) French scholar, Archaeologist, Egyptologist, and the founder of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. We quote from his book:
"OUTLINES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIAN HISTORY"
TRANSLATED AND EDITED, WITH NOTES, BY MARY BRODRICK
With, an Introductory Note by William C. Winslow, D.D., D.C.L.
LL.D., Vice-President of the Egypt Exploration Fund for the United States
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, NEW YORK, 1892
Page 28
Quote:
"How often do we see in Eastern monarchies and even in European states a difference of origin between the ruling class, to which the royal family belongs, and the mass of the people! We need not leave Western Asia and Egypt; we find there Turks ruling over nations to the race of which they do not belong, although they have adopted their religion. In the same way as the Turks of Baghdad, who are Finns, now reign over Semites, Turanian kings may have led into Egypt and governed a population of mixed origin where the Semitic element was prevalent. If we consider the mixing up of races which took place in Mesopotamia in remote ages, the invasions which the country had to suffer, the repeated conflicts of which it was the theatre, there is nothing extraordinary that populations coming out of this land should have presented a variety of races and origins."
How grotesque then, that the Turk, Zahi Hawass, the Vice Minister of Culture in Egypt: makes pronouncements about the non-Black nature of ancient Egyptians. When he does so, only to hide the true nature of his own people, and the illegitimacy of their presence in, and rule over Egypt.
quote:Sudaniya and I are having a serious discussion skip the trolling.
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Quetzalcoatl - Are you in control of your faculties?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
However, I don't understand the repeated statement, which I'm involved in another thread, that modern Egyptians are different from the Ancient Egyptians. As a North African, how do you feel when these statements are made.? Does that not in a way deny your right to this heritage? Is it that modern Egyptians are not black enough?
Modern North Africans, Arabs, and Middle Easterners are mainly Turk Mulattoes, having very little to do ethnically and genetically with Ancient Egyptians.
Just as modern American Indians are mainly European and Indian mulattoes.
Do you really think that these people are REALLY INDIANS?????
Your stupidity and delusion is really starting to grate - please stop.
quote:You know for a fact that modern Egyptians are a mixture of all the people that have conquered Egypt or settled in the territory; from the Persians to the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Armenians and Circassians.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:I have no problem with what you write. I certainly don't think Egypt is not in Africa and I am repulsed by the offensive and racist Hamitic theory: from Wikipedia
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I understand that you are defending the history and heritage of Mesoamericans from the likes of Clyde Winters and Mike and I respect that immensely and support it unconditionally... but why must you then try to take ancient Egypt out of its African context. There is no evidence that they came from Eurasia. The opposite is true.
Don't you realise that you are doing the same thing [misappropriation] when you try to take ancient Egypt out of its black African context?
I am a North African and this is my heritage:
quote:However, I don't understand the repeated statement, which I'm involved in another thread, that modern Egyptians are different from the Ancient Egyptians. As a North African, how do you feel when these statements are made.? Does that not in a way deny your right to this heritage? Is it that modern Egyptians are not black enough?
According to the Hamitic theory, this "Hamitic race" was superior to or more advanced than Negroid populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. In its most extreme form, in the writings of C. G. Seligman, this theory asserted that virtually all significant achievements in African history were the work of "Hamites" who migrated into central Africa as pastoralists, bringing new customs, languages, technologies and administrative skills with them. In the early 20th century, theoretical models of Hamitic languages and of Hamitic races were intertwined.
Why is it that somehow when I say that claims that (nonexistent) Black Native Americans are somehow superior to the"mongoloid" Native Americans- which is exactly analogous to the Hamitic theory- are not true,; I an accused of denying the blackness of Egyptians?
quote:Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
It's ridiculous to quote someone from 1850's as an authority on these topics.
quote:Good references all. The paper on white vs black rates of PD does NOT attribute these to differences in the amount of neuromelanin but to a variety of other possible causes. The other two do deal with neuromelanin but do not mention a difference between whites and blacks. The problem here is that blacks and whites have the same amount of neuromelanin see
Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
It's ridiculous to quote someone from 1850's as an authority on these topics.
Now you see, the rest of us understand what a dead-brain statement that is. I mean after all, the man is right there witnessing and recording it all.
But someone passed some scientific materials on to me that explains it all.
MK - has often spoken about the importance of Melanin in the brain - and the lack thereof in Albinos.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Racial Differences in the Diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2858583/
A lack of neuromelanin is directly related to Parkison's disease.
Neuromelanin in human dopamine neurons: comparison with peripheral melanins and relevance to Parkinson's disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15784302
The role of neuromelanin in Parkinson's disease--new concepts
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18540183
Melantonin and melanin in general also may have some effect. At a university in Arizona they've created fake melanin as a way to prevent skin cancer that can be administered to white people. Some of the noted side effects from the tests of these drugs for them was increased sex drive and feelings of euphoria. As it turns out some of the "fringe" Afrocentrist of youtube were right all along with their theories on melanin.
quote:
Abstract
The role of genetic and environmental factors in etiopathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD) is debated. The prevalence of PD is higher among white than nonwhite populations, yet it is five times higher in nonwhites living in the United States than in Nigeria. We compare counts of melanized nigral neurons between neurologically normal Nigerians and British brains. Neuronal counts were estimated in an age-matched sample of 23 Nigerian and 7 British brains from neurologically normal individuals who had no Lewy bodies and Lewy neurites on α-synuclein immunostaining. Two investigators blind to age and ethnicity performed counts of melanized neurons in a single 7-μm hemisections showing the substantia nigra pars compacta.No significant difference exists in the number of neurons between the Nigerian and the British subjects (P = 0.1, NS). Differences in melanized nigral neuronal numbers may not explain differences in the prevalence of PD between white and nonwhite populations, suggesting factors other than neuronal numbers contribute to differential susceptibility of black vs. white races to PD
quote:Mike says here, read this article
Originally posted by Mike111:
[QB] SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
A albino study which finds that Albinism has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING!!!
He,he,he,he,he:
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people.
This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
quote:So there is a world wide conspiracy by the leading iights of population research to deny Dravidians their African roots-- any evidence exempt that this would not support your hobby horse?
Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay.
.
quote:
]Yes. Northern East Indians are mainly hindutva (Hindu Nationalists), who are trying to claim that they have always been in India; eventhough they only arrive in India in 1200 BC, using Grey Pottery. Lead by Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Hindutva geneticists are attempting to use genetics to re-write the history of India.
quote:Why would all these molecular biologists of different nationalities, races, and institutions lie in a conspiracy against Africans (Dravidians) by northern Indians? Even less likely is that they, under the influence of Gyaneshwer Chaubey, lie about Paleoindians and the Americas?
Why would the following and practically all the population geneticists lie about the Dravidians: Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors.
Why would they lie about Africa and the Paleoindians?
quote:Lance D. Green, James N. Derr, and Alec Knight. 2000 "mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central Mexico," American Journal of Human Genetics 66:989-998,
group indian white
Paraiso 0.474 0.309 (30.9%)
El Carmen 0.432 0.284 (28.4%)
Veracruz 0.394 0.350 (35.0%)
Saladero 0.386 0.312 (31.2%)
Tamiahua 0.307 0.288 (28.8%)
quote:mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central Mexico
mtDNA haplotypes of representatives of the cosmopolitan peoples of north-central Mexico were studied. Two hundred twenty-three samples from individuals residing in vicinities of two localities in north-central Mexico were analyzed. A combination of strategies was employed to identify the origin of each haplotype, including length variation analysis of the COII and tRNALYS intergenic region, nucleotide sequence analysis of control region hypervariable segment 1, and RFLP analysis of PCR products spanning diagnostic sites. Analysis of these data revealed that the majority of the mtDNA haplotypes were of Native American origin, belonging to one of four primary Native American haplogroups. Others were of European or African origin, and the frequency of African haplotypes was equivalent to that of haplotypes of European derivation. These results provide diagnostic, discrete character, molecular genetic evidence that, together with results of previous studies of classical genetic systems, is informative with regard to both the magnitude of African admixture and the relative maternal contribution of African, European, and Native American peoples to the genetic heritage of Mexico. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that African sequences formed a basal, paraphyletic group.
quote:Ancient and Modern Genetic Variation in the Americas
While the wide distribution of haplogroup X in North America strongly sug- gested that it was an additional founding haplogroup, its presence in European populations left open the possibility that it was introduced through admixture after a.d. 1492. However, the form of haplogroup X in the Americas (X2a) was shown to be quite distinct from those found in Europe and Central Asia (X2e) (for nomenclature in haplogroup X, see Reidla et al. 2003), and the diversity within Native American populations suggested that the haplogroup was quite ancient in North America (Brown et al. 1998). Haplogroup X in the Americas prior to European contact was finally demonstrated by its presence in the 1340 ± 40 14C b.p. (3340 b.p.) human remains discovered near Vantage, Washington (Malhi and Smith 2002).25 Thus, haplogroup X is now viewed as an additional founder lin- eage along with haplogroups A, B, C, and D, albeit a “minor” one that has an unusual geographic distribution compared to the other four (Brown et al. 1998; Dornelles et al. 2005; Perego et al. 2009; Smith et al. 1999).
[...]
Within six months31 of the publication of the Tamm and colleagues (2007) findings, three independent research teams reported results from the collection and/or analysis of whole mitochondrial genomes that generally supported the BIM and/or a single origin for the first Americans. Kitchen and colleagues (2008) compiled sets of previous published data32 on which they conducted Bayesian skyline plot analyses (Drummond et al. 2005). Based on the coalescent, this ana- lytical tool infers effective population size backward through time from a set of sequence data and has been demonstrated to be an effective means for reconstructing population dynamics. In an updated version of this analysis,33 Mulligan and colleagues (2008) found that the proto–Native American population was isolated from central Asian populations for 7,000–15,000 years, during which it experienced little or no growth wherever it resided, which was suggested by the authors to have been in Beringia (Kitchen et al. 2008). This part of the demographic profile corresponds to the “incubation” phase proposed by Tamm and colleagues (2007), during which lineages would have accumulated novel mutations that would differentiate them from other Asian populations. Following this period, the population underwent a bottleneck upon entering the Americas approximately 17,000–16,000 b.p., after which a major reexpansion occurred (Mulligan et al. 2008), likely as a consequence of entering a large landmass that was filled with megafauna and the like but, importantly, not occupied by other humans. Note that while the degree of this bottleneck was likely exacerbated by the paleoclimatic conditions in Beringia, this founder effect, recognized more than twenty years prior by Wallace and colleagues (1985) represents just one of a series of founder effects that shaped the human gene pool since our species exited Africa (Ramachandran et al. 2005).
[...]
In line with the discussion above (Terminology for mtDNA Variants), Tamm and colleagues (2007) found evidence for five haplogroups present in indigenous American populations (A–D, X) that were introduced by nine founding lineages/ haplotypes, each representing one of nine subhaplogroups or clades of haplo- groups A, B, C, D, and X. As eight of these subhaplogroups are found widespread in the Americas, these data are consistent with a very rapid spread of humans throughout the American continents. Interestingly, the American haplotypes were a few mutational steps away from their sister Asian haplotypes. That the Native American mutations have not been identified in Asian matrilines lends support to the idea that the proto–Native American population was isolated for some time from other Asian populations, during which it accumulated these new variants (i.e., during an “incubation” period). Tamm and colleagues (2007) also estimated an age of approximately 17,000–10,000 b.p. for A2, B2, C1b, C1c, C1d, and D1, given the amount of diversity observed in these subhaplogroups today. Two additional subhaplogroups, D2a and D3, which possibly arose in the same source population (as will be discussed below), were introduced much later into the Americas, and subhaplogroup A2a was carried back into western Siberia, where it is found today among the Evenks, Koryaks, and Sel’kups (Schurr et al. 1999; Tamm et al. 2007). Overall, their study provided compelling evidence that the initial founders of the Americas emerged from a single Beringian source population.
quote:Does this confirm the rape manifestos, by European males?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Further evidence for the presence of White Native Americans
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica: Mexico,” Human Biology 68 (#3): 395-404
quote:Lance D. Green, James N. Derr, and Alec Knight. 2000 "mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central Mexico," American Journal of Human Genetics 66:989-998,
group indian white
Paraiso 0.474 0.309 (30.9%)
El Carmen 0.432 0.284 (28.4%)
Veracruz 0.394 0.350 (35.0%)
Saladero 0.386 0.312 (31.2%)
Tamiahua 0.307 0.288 (28.8%)
even in the North of Mexico we find White Native Americans
Ojinaga- white (3.0%);
Juarez- white (7.3%).
quote:Awesome closeup image,
" --a Conquistador rapes an Indian woman and above him, examples of natives (Tlaxcaltecans) who sided with the Spanish; right below: an auto-da-fé during the Inquisition in this colony. The figure in glasses on the left side of the heretic is the archbishop Juan de Mendoza while the religious figure to the right is Pedro Moya de Contreras, first inquisitor, third archbishop and Viceroy of Mexico."
quote:SEXUALITY IN COLONIAL SPANISH AMERICA
The discussions of the role of Marina-Malinche in the conquest of Mexico by Frances Karttunen and Camilla Townsend shed much light on the controversial nature of the role of this and other women in the conquest saga. 8
The sexual violence implicit in the conquest and how it affected women—mostly indigenous, but also early settlers—deserves further research and reinterpretation. To date, there are few studies that stretch into the colonial period, other than a few concerned with rape and domestic abuse. Research in criminal courts would help delineate not only a better profile of sexual violence against women of all races but delve deeper into the nature of violence itself and its symbolic meaning as an exercise in gender power.
quote:https://thetruthisfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/the-us-southwest-was-stolen-from-mexicans/
"History has registered thousands of grotesque crimes against Mexicans in that part of the Native American Continent, but more outstanding for having similarities with the grave crimes by whites in Central and South America, are those related to the taken of men by force of arms out of their homes to be murdered, then the white killers would back to the homes and rape women and little girls, murder them, set the homes on fire, and kill all the animals"
quote:Sir, I am starting to think that you crazy. No early colonialists called Native Americans white.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Further evidence for WNA (White Native Americans)
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica: Mexico,” Human Biology 68 (#3): 395-404.
group indian white
Paraiso 0.474 0.309
El Carmen 0.432 0.284
Veracruz 0.394 0.350
Saladero 0.386 0.312
Tamiahua 0.307 0.288
group indian white
Huichol 0.912 0.088
Totonaco 0.854 0.146
Chontal 0.783 0.167
Chol 0.778 0.222
Zapoteco 0.741 0.259
Huasteco 0.627 0.300
Range 8-33.7%, average= 24.7%
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%
Wiercinski, A. 1972 “Inter and intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, “ Proceedings 39th International Congress of Americanists Lima, 1970) vol. 1, pp. 231-252.
Percentage of Whites in Pre-Columbian Mexico from
p. 247 Table 9 Typological Compositions of Prehispanic Series of Crania in Mexico
Tlatilco (Pre Classic Period) 32.60%
Cerro las Mesas (Late Classic) 18.20%
Monte Alban (Classic, Pre and Post-Classic) 33.65%
Teotihuacan (Classic) 29.15%
Yucatan Maya (Classic, Post-Classic) 9.90%
quote:all of Wiercinski's samples were pre-columbian, so the results cannot be blamed on colonial rapes.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Sir, I am starting to think that you crazy. No early colonialists called Native Americans white.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Further evidence for WNA (White Native Americans)
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%
Wiercinski, A. 1972 “Inter and intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, “ Proceedings 39th International Congress of Americanists Lima, 1970) vol. 1, pp. 231-252.
Percentage of Whites in Pre-Columbian Mexico from
p. 247 Table 9 Typological Compositions of Prehispanic Series of Crania in Mexico
Tlatilco (Pre Classic Period) 32.60%
Cerro las Mesas (Late Classic) 18.20%
Monte Alban (Classic, Pre and Post-Classic) 33.65%
Teotihuacan (Classic) 29.15%
Yucatan Maya (Classic, Post-Classic) 9.90%
It's the cause of RAPE!
All it proofs is how horrific it was.
How exactly did the colonizers translate their intolerance for Native American culture into a form of oppressive colonization? The answer to this question lies in the form of sexual violence: the routine rape of Native American women that has directly contributed to a self-destructive cycle within the contemporary Native American culture. Through government institutions, Native Americans were socialized into the gender roles supported by a patriarchal European society. The cycle of self-destruction will continue to exist until accountability is taken for the injustices of the past.
[...]
The colonizers used rape as a tool of colonization against Native American people. One third of the Tlatilco sample is white therefore the Olmecs must have been white. White Native Americans exist.
--Chelsea Whalley
Sexual Violence and Self- Destruction: The Shameful History of European Colonization and
its Effects on the Native American Population
https://www2.stetson.edu/library/green/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/prize_2011Whalley.pdf
Sex & Power in Colonial America
https://sexandpower.voices.wooster.edu/posts/
quote:http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392302.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195392302-e-30
Abstract and Keywords
This article presents an overview of the bioarchaeological research done on pre-Columbian skeletal material in the Caribbean archipelago, examining the past and current development of the field of bioarchaeology in this region. Christopher Goodwin wrote an extensive monograph in which he discussed the history and development of osteological research in the Caribbean, covering approximately 130 years of research done in this field throughout the archipelago. Following his categorization, osteological work in the Caribbean area until 1979 can be divided into three major historical periods: early (1847–1935), middle (1936–1964), and modern (1965–1979). The last two decades have seen a more integrated approach to the study of human remains in Caribbean archaeology, reflecting important developments in the field of bioarchaeology in general.
Keywords: bioarchaeological research, skeletal material, burial practices, paleopathology, Caribbean osteological work
The term “bioarchaeology” was coined by Grahame Clark (1972), as a reference to zooarchaeology, or the study of animal remains from archaeological contexts. Later, Jane Buikstra (1977) redefined the term “bioarchaeology” as the multidisciplinary scientific study of human skeletal remains from archaeological contexts. In (p. 437) the United Kingdom and other European countries the term “osteoarchaeology” refers to the same research paradigm. Bioarchaeology developed in the 1960s as a reaction to the predominantly culture-historical approaches used in archaeological endeavor before that time. The initial development of the field was a clear response to the traditional research paradigm, in which the study of human remains from archaeological contexts was purely descriptive.
Currently, bioarchaeological research employs a multidisciplinary perspective, which integrates biological, cultural, and environmental variables in the study of ancient human remains. Some scholars support a more holistic approach, incorporating critical theory and studying modern descendent populations (Larsen 2006). This integrated approach incorporates biological profile (sex, age, stature, and morphological characteristics), nutrition, health and activity indicators (paleopathology, dental anthropology), diet and provenance studies (stable isotope analyses), intentional body modification, mortuary practices, and ethnohistorical accounts, in order to come to a biocultural reconstruction of ancient societies.
The principal aims of this chapter are to present an overview of bioarchaeological research done on pre-Columbian skeletal material in the Caribbean archipelago and to shed light on the past and current developments of the field of bioarchaeology in this region. Christopher Goodwin (1979) discusses the history and development of osteological research in the Caribbean, covering approximately 130 years of research done in this field throughout the archipelago. Following his categorization, osteological work in the Caribbean area until 1979 is divided into three major historical periods: early (1847–1935), middle (1936 to 1964), and modern (1965 to 1979). We use his framework to structure the first section of this chapter.
From 1847 to 1979
In the early period, major contributions to Caribbean osteology came from Cuba and Jamaica. This period is mainly characterized by a predilection toward descriptive studies of the skull, with great emphasis on craniology and craniometrics. While during the first three decades of the twentieth century archaeological excavations were organized in some Caribbean islands, the foci of these investigations did not extend to human remains (Goodwin 1979:464–473).
The middle period witnessed a continuation of this heavy focus on craniometry, craniotrigonometry, and study of intentional cranial deformation, with Cuban research again at the forefront (Goodwin 1979:473–479; Herrera Fritot 1964; Rivero de la Calle 1960). Although significant methodological advances were made in the techniques of measuring and documenting aspects of the human skull and skeleton as a whole, very little attention was given to the development of a strong (p. 438) theoretical underpinning of osteological research. Perhaps in part due to the ‘atheoretical’ character of osteology during this period, later important founders of modern archaeological research in the Caribbean, such as Irving Rouse and Froelich Rainey were not trained in osteology. Nonetheless, while archaeological research in the region focused on the development of expansive chronologies and patterns of migration based on material culture and linguistics (Goodwin 1979), the middle period saw an increase in studies at pre-Columbian burial sites throughout the archipelago (e.g., Alegría et al. 1955; Herrera Fritot and Rivero de la Calle 1954; Rainey 1940; Rouse 1952a, 1952b; Royo 1939; Tacoma 1959; Wagenaar Hummelinck 1959).
The modern period witnessed a change in perception of the value of studying human remains due to the development of cultural ecology. Archaeologists became increasingly aware of the systemic relationship between man and environment, creating a new impetus for studying human remains from archeological contexts. Skeletal data could now be integrated with other sets of archaeological data to enable more accurate reconstructions of prehistory. Osteology could, in fact, benefit archaeology (Goodwin 1979:481), and this prompted an interest in other parts of the skeleton including the study of noncranial paleopathology. For the first time pathological conditions such as syphilis, osteomyelitis, and caries were reported in skeletal remains from across the region (e.g., Bullen 1964; Torres and Rivero de la Calle 1972; Luna Calderón 1976b). During the 1970s, a considerable number of pre-Columbian burial sites were excavated in the Dominican Republic, including La Cucama, La Unión, Cueva de Berna and El Atajadizo, consequently generating a great deal of attention for mortuary practices (Luna Calderón 1973, 1976a, 1977).
Between 1969 and 1971, excavations in Trinidad led to the discovery of a primary human burial at the preceramic site of Banwari Trace. The adult skeleton, possibly a female, lay in a flexed position on its left side, in a shallow, tightly fitting burial pit. A smooth oval pebble was found by the skull and a needle point was positioned by the pelvis (Boomert 2000:65; Harris 1973). Radiocarbon analysis of this individual gave a date of around 4000 b.c., making this the oldest skeleton yet recovered in the Caribbean archipelago.
Goodwin’s modern period was characterized by the increased integration of osteology into archaeological endeavors. Where earlier studies were highly descriptive and atheoretical, during this period efforts were made to identify causalities for observed phenomena using comparative and interpretative analyses. Caribbean researchers emphasized diet and health conditions and their relation with the environment, producing a new theoretical and methodological approach coined by Goodwin as ‘ecological osteology’ (Goodwin 1979:482). Promisingly, these studies were now being performed in close cooperation with or even by experienced archaeologists. Renewed interest in osteology sparked greater attention for mortuary practices and the sociopolitical implications of variation therein. Principle investigators during this period, and continuing throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and first years of the twenty-first century, were Manuel Rivero de la (p. 439) Calle (Cuba) and Fernando Luna Calderón (Dominican Republic). Furthermore, this period saw the first female physical anthropologist, Adelaide K. Bullen, who among many other things recognized the importance of studying paleopathological conditions of the human skeleton.
From 1980 to 1999
In the Greater Antilles, numerous preceramic and Ceramic Age sites were excavated with the study of the human remains forming a major focus of investigations. High caliber research, much of it undertaken by Luna Calderón in the Dominican Republic, centered on mortuary practices, but also dealt with indications for subsistence economy such as severe dental wear and artifacts related to food production. The association between burials and artifacts was used to build an informed picture of social status differences. Furthermore, skeletal pathology and cranial modification were studied and interpreted with the aid of archaeological and ethnohistorical data (e.g., Luna Calderón 1993).
At the same time, Cuba was experiencing a transitional phase. For the first time archaeologists started to consider the developmental and organizational structures of society more directly. In the previous two decades the dynamics of cultural change and society were largely ignored in favor of the Marxist-informed social superstructure rooted in the forces of production. Now, researchers in Cuba (and other Latin American countries) began reflecting on the nature of the relationship between archaeological sites and artifacts. This meant a shift from an almost purely descriptive and methodological approach to the application of social theory to both archaeological and osteological data (Davis 1996). An important site discovered during this period is the cemetery of El Chorro de Maíta, located in the northeastern province of Holguín. The site is unique in being the only cemetery reported in Cuba for the ‘agroalfarero’ period, roughly equivalent to what Rouse (1992) termed western Taíno. Initial research indicated its continued use during the early postcontact period. The uniqueness of El Chorro de Maíta was attributed to factors of social and cultural change resulting from the arrival of the first European colonial forces into the region, although the site subsequently became a symbol of Taíno culture and society for the Cuban population. More than one hundred burials were excavated at the site. Most individuals were found in a flexed, supine position or flexed on the side. Some were extended and a very small number were prone burials. In the central part of the cemetery, many inhumations were cut into previous burials, indicating clear chronological differences between them (Guarch Delmonte 1988).
Osteological research in Puerto Rico during the 1980s was far less advanced than in the Dominican Republic and Cuba. There, little work had been done with human remains since the 1940s and 1950s, and the assemblages that had (p. 440) been excavated during that period were in a situation of disarray. A lack of published works, combined with poor preservation of material (some of which had been lost or dispersed) meant that by the mid-1980s Puerto Rico had yet to build up a corpus of information on human skeletal remains from the island (Walker 1985). However, by the late 1980s Edwin Crespo-Torres had analyzed skeletal material from, for example, the site of Punta Candalero, showing among other things a profound interest in human dental wear, morphology and pathology, and incorporating routine and thorough dental analyses into his research (Crespo-Torres 1994).
Osteoarchaeological research in the Lesser Antilles during the initial phase of this period was mostly characterized by incidental excavation and analysis of human remains in the context of studies focusing on very different aspects of past lifestyle such as pottery styles and chronology, subsistence practices, settlement location and layout, but also as the result of salvage excavations of endangered cultural heritage. However, a number of studies during this phase are noteworthy for their more thorough and comprehensive approach to the study of human remains.
In the early 1980s the Austrian Academy of Sciences studied skeletons from the site of Point de Caille (Saltibus Point) on Saint Lucia. The research was of high standard and various experts, including physical anthropologists, were involved in the study of the material. The result was a detailed osteological report on the skeletons retrieved from the site, including age, sex, and pathological conditions of the individuals. However, little attention was given to mortuary practices (Fabrizii-Reuer and Reuer 2005; Friesinger et al. 1986).
A few years later, Leiden University set up a large-scale project focusing on the early Ceramic Age site of Golden Rock on St. Eustatius (1984–1990). The Leiden team introduced open-area excavation to the Caribbean. This method is well suited to the identification of soil features at the site level, and hence the study of prehistoric structures, which was the focus of the investigations. Nine pre-Columbian burials were excavated and subjected to osteological examination. Some interpretations of mortuary practices were offered based on the presence of burial gifts in some of the graves, and great inconsistency in burial positions was noted (Versteeg and Schinkel 1992).
The 1980s also saw the excavation and osteological analysis of a number of noteworthy skeletal assemblages from the southern Netherlands Antilles (e.g., Tacoma 1991). The Archaic cemetery site of Malmok (Aruba) was excavated under the direction of Aad Versteeg, who, together with physical anthropologist Jouke Tacoma studied the osteology and mortuary practices of the approximately 60 individuals buried there. In the mid-1990s, efforts were made to place this Archaic cemetery in a Caribbean-wide cultural context for the period, as Versteeg and Tacoma visited Cuba to compare their results to Archaic burials there (Versteeg, Tacoma, and Van de Velde 1990).
The start of the 1990s brought a new approach. In the Lesser Antilles this is exemplified by the initiation of a large-scale, holistic rescue excavation at the (p. 441) Saladoid-Chican Ostionoid site of Tutu, St. Thomas (US Virgin Islands), and a long term project at the Late Ceramic Age site of Kelbey’s Ridge 2, Saba.
The Tutu archaeological village site project was unique in its multidisciplinary design, its incorporation of large numbers of professional and amateur volunteers, and its local community-oriented approach. The excellent manner of excavation, documentation, and analysis of the 42 human skeletons excavated at the site were equally unique in the Caribbean region at that time. Detailed studies were carried out on the osteology and pathology, mortuary practices, and dietary practices at the site, including trace element and stable isotope analyses and a dental anthropological study (Righter 2002).
At the site of Kelbey’s Ridge 2, osteology and the study of mortuary practices was from the outset an important and integral part of the exhaustive investigation of the site. This included all aspects of habitation and subsistence, from the analysis of (house) structures, food remains and burials to the mobility and exchange of goods and ideas. Furthermore, as new archaeometric techniques have been developed the analysis of the human remains – has continued (e.g., Hofman and Hoogland 1993; Hoogland and Hofman 1999). This integrated approach to the investigation of combined burial and habitation sites was sustained throughout the decade in investigations at the site of Anse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe (Booden et al. 2008; Delpuech et al. 2001; Hofman, this volume; Hoogland and Hofman, this volume; Hoogland et al. 2010; Laffoon, this volume; Mickleburgh 2007, 2011).
The Study of Pre-Columbian Human Remains in the Caribbean ArchipelagoFrom Descriptive Osteology to a Bioarchaeological ApproachClick to view larger
Figure 30.1. Primary burial from Paso del Indio (Vega Baja, Puerto Rico).
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/doc/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392302.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195392302-oxfordhb_9780195392302_graphic_033-full.gif
The Study of Pre-Columbian Human Remains in the Caribbean ArchipelagoFrom Descriptive Osteology to a Bioarchaeological ApproachClick to view larger
Figure 30.2. Primary and secondary burial from Paso del Indio (Vega Baja, Puerto Rico).
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/doc/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392302.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195392302-oxfordhb_9780195392302_graphic_034-full.gif
In the island of Puerto Rico two important burial sites were investigated during the 1990s, and research continues today. In 1993, the site of Paso del Indio was revealed and severely damaged during the construction of the PR22 highway bridges in the municipality of Vega Baja. The site contained a wealth of clearly distinguishable features including post molds, hearths, and 150 human burials (Figures 30.1 and 30.2). Three occupational components were distinguished at the site, one preceramic and two Ceramic (late Cedrosan Saladoid and Chican (p. 442) Ostionoid). The human remains pertain to the Ceramic Age occupation. Over 40 radiocarbon dates were taken from the site, ranging from 2580 b.c. to a.d. 1655 (Walker 2005). The excavation of the site was carried out using an integrated approach in which mortuary practices and evidence of ancestor worship, burial taphonomy, health conditions paleodemography, stable isotope analysis, analysis of lithic assemblages, and paleoethnobiology were key to the multidisciplinary design of the project (Crespo-Torres 2000, 2005a, 2011; Curet 2005; Pestle, this volume; Rodríguez Ramos 2010; Siegel 2005).
The ceremonial center of Tibes is located to the north of Ponce, approximately 8 km from the southern coast of Puerto Rico. The site is situated in the dry hills between coastal plains of the south and the central mountain range. The site was discovered in the mid-1970s and investigations show it was occupied for more than 800 years (a.d. 400–1200) throughout the Saladoid and Ostionoid. A total of 126 human remains were recovered. Between 1995 and 2003 a multidisciplinary project was conducted, integrating numerous lines of investigation including biocultural analyses of the skeletal remains of the individuals who were born, lived and died in this important ceremonial center (Curet and Stringer 2010).
The 1980s and 1990s also brought a series of discoveries of human remains from early preceramic age sites, giving the first tangible evidence of the early migrants to the region since the discovery of the Archaic Age burial of an adult female at the site of Banwari Trace (Trinidad). In Cuba, preceramic burial sites included Canímar Abajo, dated to 5644 b.c. (Rodríguez Súarez et al. 2006), which stands out with regards to the multidisciplinary approach used. The site is located in the northwest of the island, and was first discovered in 1984 in a rock shelter adjacent to the Canímar river. Between 1984 and 1986, 56 human skeletons were excavated. Initial research focused on mortuary practices and ancient disease at the site. Further excavations in the ensuing decades comprise a part of the Anthropological Museum Montané’s (University of Havana) multidisciplinary training program, (p. 443) integrating mortuary practices, burial taphonomy, paleodiet, paleoclimate, osteometry, and paleopathology (e.g., Chinique de Armas et al. 2008; Martínez-López et al. 2009).
In Puerto Rico during this period early preceramic skeletal remains were found at Angostura, dated to 4000 b.c. (Ayes 1989), Maruca dated to 2850 b.c. (Rodríguez López 1999), and Puerto Ferro dated to 1900 b.c. (Chanlatte Baik and Narganes 1991; Crespo-Torres 1998).
Finally, in addition to the new focus on paleopathology, paleodemography, mortuary practices, and general osteological aspects of pre-Columbian human remains from the Caribbean this period brought the first dental anthropological studies to the region. Studies were made of patterns of human dental wear, linking them to particular subsistence strategies and including an investigation into the use of teeth as tools (e.g., Crespo-Torres 1994; Rivero de la Calle and Toribio Suarez 1984). For the first time, a particular dental wear pattern associated with a high caries percentage, known as Lingual Surface Attrition of Maxillary Anterior Teeth (LSAMAT) was documented in the region (Crespo-Torres 1994; cf. Turner and Machado 1983). Furthermore, characteristics of human dental morphology in the region were studied for the first time, shedding light on the degree of biological affinity between some groups (e.g. preceramic vs. Ceramic) within the region (Coppa et al. 1995; Crespo-Torres 1994).
A new paradigm
In many Caribbean islands, the start of the 1990s saw a growth in both academic research and cultural resource management (CRM) projects involving the excavation of human remains, which together with theoretical and methodological developments within the field of bioarchaeology, set in motion the rapid development of a new multidisciplinary approach to the study of human skeletal remains in the region.
A recent CRM project conducted by Southeastern Archaeological Research Inc. exemplifies the contribution that CRM projects are currently making to our understanding of human skeletal remains and mortuary practices in the region. Two late Saladoid/early Ostionoid sites from the lower Río Tanamá municipality of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, were excavated in order to mitigate the impact on archaeological heritage as the US Army Corps of Engineers was constructing a levee. The two sites are located approximately 1.5 km upstream from the confluence of the Río Tanamá and the Río Grande de Arecibo. Eleven human burials were excavated at the sites. Analysis of these remains comprised an integrated part of the in-depth analysis of the sites. The multidisciplinary approach applied in this project led to the reconstruction of not only the two village sites, their formation and inhabitation, changes over time, subsistence practices, and abandonment but also social (p. 444) and ideological ties within the region and mortuary practices at the sites; in short, a complete picture was built of past life at these sites (Carlson 2008).
Next to the significant contributions from CRM, academic studies continue to front the development of more refined methods and approaches to the study of human remains. One important aspect of these studies is the reevaluation of previously studied material in the light of recent technical and analytical developments. For instance, recent investigations are reviewing previously collected data from the site of El Chorro de Maíta, Cuba (mentioned above), and employing new techniques from burial taphonomy. These studies have led to a new understanding of mortuary practices and social differentiation at the site. It is now clear that individuals were buried in a manner that has both indigenous and European influences. Furthermore, analysis of grave goods has shown that European objects were incorporated and adapted to local cultural stylistic norms (Varcárcel Rojas and Rodríguez Arce 2005). New studies of paleodemographic profile, intentional dental modification, human mobility, and cranial modification have furthermore shown that the cemetery of El Chorro de Maíta was the final resting place for persons with a range of biological, ancestral and cultural backgrounds, including Indigenous, European, African, Amerindian-mestizo, and in one case perhaps Mesoamerican. Even though this is highly remarkable, there is no evidence of actual European presence at the site, and rather than resulting from colonial oppression, the cemetery of El Chorro de Maíta instead appears to reflect processes of culture contact, interaction, and transculturation (Valcárcel Rojas et al. 2011).
New research programs continue to build on this development toward holistic and multidisciplinary analysis of archaeological sites within their social and cultural context in the region as a whole. The recent pan-Caribbean research project “Communicating Communities,” directed by Corinne L. Hofman approaches human mobility and exchange of goods and ideas from a multiscalar perspective, and with an important focus on the study of human skeletal remains and mortuary practices (e.g., Hoogland and Hofman, this volume; Mol, this volume).
Other recent studies have also focused on human movement and migration, shedding new light on the long-standing subject of how, when and from where the islands were populated, using the increasing wealth of information that can be obtained from the skeleton. Recent cranial and dental morphometric studies have demonstrated the enormous potential for analyses of human skeletal morphology in answering fundamental questions on past population movements. Ross and Ubelaker (2010) have, for example, demonstrated that Late Ceramic Age population samples from Columbia, Venezuela, Hispaniola, Jamaica, and Puerto Rico show a high degree of biological similarity, while their Cuban sample shows a different population history. While their results confirm that one route by which the islands were populated was in northwesterly direction from South America, they also contradict traditional ideas on the later displacement of Archaic populations in Hispaniola by Ostionoid immigrants (Rouse 1992). Their study adds credence (p. 445) to theories on the extensive complexity of diffusion, migration, and hybridization that gave rise to the heterogeneity clearly present in late Ceramic Age material culture in the region (e.g., Keegan 1995, 2006). Furthermore, a recent analysis of dental nonmetric traits from various Archaic, Ostionoid, and Chicoid populations from the Greater Antilles has also demonstrated that early Cuban populations represent a different wave of migration into the islands than later Ceramic Age groups in Hispaniola and Puerto Rico. Results again show Late Ceramic Age groups in Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and eastern Cuba were not the result of displacement of earlier groups, but derived from biological intermixture of different groups (Coppa et al. 2008). Together, these studies paint a scenario in which the majority of biological and cultural exchange and intermixture during and after the advent of Ostionoid material culture took place between populations in Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, and Jamaica, with Cuba adopting material culture but not sharing (at least to the same degree) in the biological exchange.
Conclusions and future perspectives
The last two decades have seen a more integrated approach to the study of human remains in Caribbean archaeology, reflecting important developments in the field of bioarchaeology in general (Goldstein 2006; Larsen 2006). Burial assemblages are now recognized as “microcosms of cultures” (Shimada et al. 2004), and in the past few decades the study of burial assemblages and mortuary practices has rapidly shifted focus from descriptive osteology to multidisciplinary collaborations combining techniques from bioarchaeology, biogeochemistry, and forensic anthropology (Larsen 2006).
Researchers in the Caribbean, continue to improve their approach and excavation methodology in the light of this new paradigm. This is reflected, for example, in the routine presence of an osteologist in the field from the outset of excavations and often during the earlier stages of designing research questions and approach. This has led, among other things, to increasing attention to processes of burial taphonomy, which can only be observed in the field. This approach enhances our understanding of past mortuary practices in the region, as more and more information can now be extracted from the human skeleton and burial contexts (Hoogland and Hofman, this volume). Moreover, the number of postexcavation studies on human remains has increased, as researchers have rapidly adopted and adapted new techniques to the Caribbean cultural setting. Caribbean archaeologists are using a range of archaeometric techniques centered on or involving human skeletal remains, such as stable isotope analysis and trace element analysis in order to understand diet and provenance (e.g., Laffoon, this volume; Pestle, this volume). Furthermore, instead of a single osteologist reporting on general aspects of the skeleton, increasing numbers of specialists are focusing on specific features (p. 446) of human behavior as reflected in the skeleton and its manner of interment, often shedding new light on previously understudied subjects (Larsen 2006). Currently, these branches of investigation include burial taphonomy and mortuary practices (Crespo-Torres 2011; Hoogland and Hofman, this volume), dental anthropology (Coppa et al. 2002; Coppa et al. 2008; Larsen et al. 2002; Mickleburgh 2007, 2011; Mickleburgh et al. 2011; Valcárcel Rojas et al. 2011), intentional cranial modification (Crespo-Torres 2000, 2005b; Valcárcel Rojas et al. 2011), ancient DNA analysis (e.g., Martínez-Cruzado, this volume), processes of human settlement in the region including morphometric analysis (Ross and Ubelaker 2010), paleodemography (Curet 2005), and ancient disease (Crespo-Torres 2005a, 2008; Santos et al. 2002). This new focus on human remains and their value in answering fundamental questions on the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Caribbean islands has encouraged the recent osteological reexamination of a large number of skeletal collections from throughout the region.
The excavation and study of pre-Columbian human skeletal remains in the Caribbean archipelago has in recent decades followed similar developments to approaches and methodologies used outside the region. Not only are human remains now incorporated in holistic site investigations, but in many recent studies they have become one of the main foci of research. As this trend continues, we stand to gain ever more valuable insights into past lifeways in the region, both on an individual (personal) level, and on a larger regional scale. Naturally the larger numbers of human skeletal remains excavated will require storage and curation facilities, most preferably in local museums and other heritage management organizations. An important next step in the field, then, is adapting and building on existing procedures for storage and further study of material, in order to accommodate increasing numbers of human skeletons.
References cited
Alegría, R., H. B. Nicholson, and G. R. Willey. 1955. The Archaic Tradition in Puerto Rico. American Antiquity 21(2): 113–121.Find this resource:
Ayes Suarez, C.M. 1989. Angostura: Un Campamento Arcaico Temprano del Valle de Manatuabón. Revista Universidad de América 1(2): 24–37.Find this resource:
Booden, M.A., R. G. A. M. Panhuysen, M. L. P. Hoogland, H. N. de Jong, G. R. Davies, and C. L. Hofman. 2008. Tracing Human Mobility with 87Sr/86Sr at Anseà la Gourde, Guadeloupe. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeology Materials from the Caribbean, edited by C. L. Hofman, M. L. P. Hoogland, and A. L. van Gijn, pp. 214–225. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
Boomert, A. 2000. Trinidad, Tobago and the Lower Orinoco Interaction Sphere: An Archaeological/Ethnohistorical Study. Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden. Cairi Publications, Alkmaar, Netherlands.Find this resource:
(p. 447) Buikstra, J.E. 1977. Biocultural Dimensions of Archaeological Study: A Regional Perspective. In Biocultural Adaptation in Prehistoric America, edited by R. L. Blakely, pp. 67–84. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.Find this resource:
Bullen, A.K. 1964. Skeletal Remains and Dental Pathology of the Savanne Suazey Site, Grenada, West Indies. In The Archaeology of Granada, West Indies, edited by R. P. Bullen, pp. 13–17. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Find this resource:
Carlson, E. 2008. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Site Testing and Data Recovery at Two Village Sites (AR-38 and AR-39) on the Lower Río Tanamá, Municipality of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Vol. 1. Jacksonville District: Final Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Find this resource:
Chanlatte Baik, L., and Y. Narganes Storde. 1991. El Hombre de Puerto Ferro. In Actas del Decimocuarto Congreso de la Asociación Internacional para la Arqueología del Caribe, edited by A. Cummins, and P. King, pp. 599–611. Barbados Museum and Historical Society, Barbados.Find this resource:
Chinique de Armas Y., R. Rodríguez Suárez, C. Arredondo Antúnez, O. Collazo, A. Boza, S. Alleyne, M. Álvarez, M. Liva, and J. R. Pagán Jiménez. 2008. Estudio paleodietario en restosóseos aborígenes del sitio arqueológico Canímar Abajo, Matanzas, Cuba. Boletín Antropológico 26(73): 131–148.Find this resource:
Clark, G. 1972. Star Carr: A Case Study in Bioarchaeology. Modular publications. Addison-Wesley, London.Find this resource:
Coppa, A., B. Chiarelli, A. Cucina, F. Luna Calderón, and D. Mancinelli. 1995. Dental Anthropology and Paleodemography of the Pre-Columbian Populations of Hispaniola from the IIIrd Millennium b.c. to the Spanish Conquest. Human Evolution 10(2): 153–167.Find this resource:
Coppa, Alfredo, A. Cucina, M. Lucci, A. Pellegrini, and R. Vargiu. 2002. The Populations in the circum-Caribbean Area from the 4th Millennium BC to the Conquest: The Biological Relationships According to Possible Migratory Patterns. American Journal of Physical Anthropology Supplement 34: 57.Find this resource:
Coppa, A., A. Cucina, M. L. P. Hoogland, M. Lucci, F. Luna Calderón, R. G. A. M. Panhuysen, M. G. Tavares, R. Valcárcel Rojas, and R. Vargiu. 2008. New Evidence of Two Different Migratory Waves in the Circum-Caribbean Area during the Pre-Columbian Period from the Analysis of Dental Morphological Traits. In Crossing the Borders: New Methods and Techniques in the Study of Archaeological Materials from the Caribbean, edited by C. L. Hofman, M. L. P. Hoogland, and A. L. Van Gijn, pp. 195–225. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
Crespo-Torres, E. 1994. Dental Analysis of Human Burials Recovered from Punta Candelero: A Prehistoric Site on the Southeast Coast of Puerto Rico. Master’s thesis. Arizona State University.Find this resource:
Crespo-Torres, E. 1998. Análisis Osteológico del Hombre de Puerto Ferro. In Tiempo, Población y Sociedad: Homenaje al Maestro Arturo Romano, edited by M. T. Jaén, S. A. López, L. Márquez, and O. P. Hernández, pp. 331–342. INAH, Mexico City, Mexico.Find this resource:
Crespo-Torres, E. 2000. Estudio Comparativo Biocultural entre dos Poblaciones Prehistóricas de la Isla de Puerto Rico: Punta Candelero y Paso del Indio, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F.Find this resource:
Crespo-Torres, E. 2005a. Evidence of Pre-Columbian Treponematosis from Paso del Indio: An Archaeological Site on the Island of Puerto Rico. In The Myth of Syphilis: The Natural History of Treponematosis in North America, 1st ed. Florida Museum (p. 448) of Natural History, edited by M. L. Powell and D. Collins Cook, pp. 386–401. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Find this resource:
Crespo-Torres, E. 2005b. La Cultura Huecoide y Su Conexión con la Introducción de la Práctica de la Deformación Cefálica Intencional en las Antillas. In Cultura La Hueca, edited by L. Chanlatte Baik, and Y. Narganes Storde, pp. 57–65. Museo de Historia, Antropología y Arte, Universidad de Puerto Rico, San Juan.Find this resource:
Crespo-Torres, E. 2008. La Enfermedad en los Indios de Boriquén. Revista del Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña 8(16): 3–15.Find this resource:
Crespo-Torres, E. 2011. Bioarchaeological Evidence of Ancestor Worship from Paso del Indio: An Archaeological Site in the Island of Puerto Rico. In Aporte Universitario: Antología de Ensayos Interdisciplinarios en la Ciencias Sociales, edited by J. R. Rodríguez Gómez, 187–211. Editorial APLUS, San Juan, Puerto Rico.Find this resource:
Curet L. Antonio. 2005. Caribbean Paleodemography: Population, Culture History, and Sociopolitical Processes in Ancient Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press. Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
Curet L. Antonio, and Lisa M. Stringer. 2010. Tibes: People, Power, and Ritual at the Center of the Cosmos (Caribbean Archaeology and Ethnohistory). University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
Davis, D.D. 1996. Revolutionary archaeology in Cuba. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3(2): 159–188.Find this resource:
Delpuech, A., C. L. Hofman, and M. L. P. Hoogland. 2001. Excavations at the site of Anse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe. Organization, History and Environmental Setting. Proceedings of the Congress for Caribbean Archaeology 18: 156–161. Basse Terre, Guadeloupe.Find this resource:
Fabrizii-Reuer, S., and E. Reuer. 2005. Die Gräber aus den “Shell-Middens” der Präkolumbianischen Siedlung von Pointe de Caille, St. Lucia, West Indies. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Find this resource:
Friesinger, H., E. Reuer, F. Steininger, and P. Faupl. 1986. Grabungen und Forschungen auf St. Lucia 1984. Vol. Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band XXIII. Vienna.Find this resource:
Goldstein, L. 2006. Mortuary Analysis and Bioarchaeology. In Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains, edited by J. E. Buikstra and L. A. Beck, pp. 375–388. Academic Press, New York.Find this resource:
Goodwin, C.R. 1979. The History and Development of Osteology in the Caribbean Area. Revista/Review Interamericana 8(3): 463–494.Find this resource:
Guarch Delmonte, J.M. 1988. Sitio Arqueológico El Chorro de Maíta. Revista Cubana de Ciencias Sociales 17: 162–183.Find this resource:
Harris, P. O’B. 1973. Preliminary Report on Banwari Trace: A Pre-Ceramic Site in Trinidad. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress for the Study of the Pre-Colombian Culture of the Lesser Antilles, pp. 115–125. Saint Lucia, 1971.Find this resource:
Herrera Fritot, R. 1964. Craneotrigonometría: Tratado Práctico de Geometría Craneana. Havana: Departamento de Antropología, Comisión Nacional de Ciencias de la República de Cuba.Find this resource:
Herrera Fritot, R., and M. Rivero de la Calle. 1954. La Cueva Funeraria de Carbonera, Matanzas. Contribución de la Sociedad Espeleológica de Cuba al Décimo Congreso Nacional de Historia.Find this resource:
Hofman, C.L., and M. L.P. Hoogland. 1993. Kelbey’s Ridge 2, a Fourteenth Century Taino Settlement on Saba, N.A. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 26: 163–181.Find this resource:
(p. 449) Hoogland M. L.P., and C. L. Hofman. 1999. Taino Expansion Towards the Lesser Antilles: The Case of Saba. Journal de la Société des Américanistes 85: 93–113.Find this resource:
Hoogland M. L.P., C. L. Hofman, and R. G. A. M. Panhuysen. 2010. Interisland Dynamics. Evidence for Human Mobility at the Site of Anseàla Gourde, Guadeloupe. In Island Shores, Distant Pasts: Archaeological and Biological Approaches to the Pre-Columbian Settlement of the Caribbean, edited by Scott M. Fitzpatrick, and Ann H. Ross, pp. 148–162. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Find this resource:
Keegan, W.F. 1995. Modeling Dispersal in the Prehistoric West Indies. World Archaeology 26: 400–420.Find this resource:
Keegan, W.F. 2006. Archaic Influences in the Origins and Development of Taino Societies. Caribbean Journal of Science 42(1): 1–10.Find this resource:
Larsen, C.S. 2006. The Changing Face of Bioarchaeology: An Interdisciplinary Science. In Bioarchaeology the Contextual Study of Human Remains, edited by J. E. Buikstra, and L. A. Beck, pp. 359–374. Academic Press, New York.Find this resource:
Luna Calderón, F. 1973. Estudio Comparativo y Preliminar de Dos Cementerios Neo-Indios: La Cucama y La Unión. Boletín del Museo del Hombre Dominicano 3: 11–47.Find this resource:
Luna Calderón, F. 1976a. Estudios Esqueletales y Posibles Patologías en el Periodo Ceramista Antillano. Actas del XLI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas 3: 632–646.Find this resource:
Luna Calderón, F. 1976b. Informe Preliminar del Cementerio Indígena del El Atajadizo, República Dominicana. Boletín del Museo del Hombre Dominicano Diciembre: 67–95.Find this resource:
Luna Calderón, F. 1977. Enterramientos Humanos y Patologías de Cueva de Berna. In Arqueología de Cueva de Berna, edited by M. Veloz Maggiolo, E. Ortega, J. Nadal, F. Luna Calderón, and R. O. Rimoli, pp. 27–32.Find this resource:
Luna Calderón, F. 1993. Paleopatología de los Grupos Tainos de la Española. In La Cultura Taina, pp. 165–174. Biblioteca del V Centenario, Madrid.Find this resource:
Joao G. Martínez-López, Carlos Arredondo Ant únez, Roberto Rodríguez Su árez, and Stephen D íaz-Franco. 2009. Approximación Tafonómica en los Depósitos Humanos del Sitio Aqueológico Canímar Abajo, Matanzas, Cuba. Arqueología Iberoamericana 4: 5–21.Find this resource:
Mickleburgh, H.L. 2007. Teeth Tell Tales: Dental Wear as Evidence for Cultural Practices at Anse à la Gourde and Tutu. Sidestone Press, Leiden.Find this resource:
Mickleburgh, H.L. 2011. Teeth Tell Tales. Subsistence Strategies and Dental Wear Patterns at Anse à la Gourde (Guadeloupe) and Tutu (U.S. Virgin Islands). Proceedings of the Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology 23: 732–742. Antigua.Find this resource:
Mickleburgh, H.L., J. E. Laffoon, and D. A. Weston. 2011. Bioarchaeological Insights into the Lower Orinoco Interaction Sphere: Recent Investigations of the Manzanilla (SAN-1) Skeletal Assemblage. Paper presented at the Leiden in the Caribbean V: Indigenous Heritage of the Caribbean: Papers in Honour of Dr. Arie Boomert. Leiden.Find this resource:
Rainey, F.G. 1940. Porto Rican Archaeology: Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Vol. 18 (1). New York Academy of Sciences, New York.Find this resource:
Righter, E. 2002. The Tutu Archaeological Village Site: A Multidisciplinary Case Study in Human Adaptation. Routledge, London.Find this resource:
Rivero de la Calle, M. 1960. Deformación Craneana en los Aborígenes de Cuba. Estudio Comparativo. Paper presented at Actes du VIe Congrés International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologique. Paris.Find this resource:
(p. 450) Rivero de la Calle, M., and L. Toribio Suarez. 1984. Estudio Odontométrico de la Dentición Permanente en los Aborígenes de Cuba. Paper presented at X Congreso Nacional de Estomatología, Havana.Find this resource:
Rodríguez Ramos Reniel. 2010. Rethinking Puerto Rican Precolonial History. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
Rodríguez Lopéz Miguel. 1999. Excavaciones en ‘Maruca’, una Comunidad Arcaica del sur de Puerto Rico. Proceedings of the Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology 17: 166–180. New Providence, Bahamas.Find this resource:
Rodríguez Suarez, R., C. Arredondo, A. Rangel, S. Godoy, O. de Lara, U. González, J. G. Martínez, and O. Pereira. 2006. 5000 Años de Ocupación Prehispánica en Canímar Abajo, Matanzas. Cuba, 30/6/2011. Available at http://cubaarqueologica.org/document/ant06_rodriguez.pdf.
Ross, A.H. 2004. Cranial Evidence of Precontact Multiple Population Expansions in the Caribbean. Caribbean Journal of Science 40(3): 291–298.Find this resource:
Ross, A.H., and D. H. Ubelaker. 2010. A Morphometric Approach to Taíno Biological Distance in the Caribbean. In Island Shores, Distant Pasts: Archaeological and Biological Approaches to the Pre-Columbian Settlement of the Caribbean, edited by S. M. Fitzpatrick, and A. H. Ross, pp. 108–126. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.Find this resource:
Rouse, I. 1952a. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Vol. 18, Part 3. Porto Rican Prehistory: Introduction; Excavations in the West and North. New York Academy of Sciences, New York.Find this resource:
Rouse, I. 1952b. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Vol. 18, Part 4. Porto Rican Prehistory: Excavations in the Interior, South and East. New York Academy of Sciences, New York.Find this resource:
Rouse, I. 1992. The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Find this resource:
Royo Guardia, F. 1939. Entierros Aborígenes de Cuba. Memorias Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural 14: 39–43.Find this resource:
Santos A. L., P. Allsworth-Jones, E. Rodriques. 2002. Pathological Evidence in the Pre-Columbian Human Remains from the Lee Collections (Jamaica). Antropologia Portuguesa 19:121–138.Find this resource:
Shimada, I., K. Shinoda, J. Farnum, R. Corruccini, and H. Watanabe. 2004. An Integrated Analysis of Pre-Hispanic Mortuary Practices: A Middle Sicán Case Study. Current Anthropology 45(3): 369–402.Find this resource:
Siegel, P.E. 2005. Ancient Boriquen: Archaeology and Etnohistory of Native Puerto Rico. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
Tacoma, J. 1959. Indian Skeletal Remains from Aruba. Nijhoff, ’s-Gravenhage.Find this resource:
Tacoma, J. 1991. Precolumbian Human Skeletal Remains from Curacao, Aruba and Bonaire. Paper presented at Congress of the International Association for Caribbean Archaeology 13. Curacao, Netherlands Antilles.Find this resource:
Torres Valdés, P., and M. Rivero de la Calle. 1972. Paleopatología de los aborígenes de Cuba. Serie espeleológica y carsológica 32. Academia de Ciencias de Cuba, Instituto de Geografía, Havana.Find this resource:
Turner G. Christy, II, and L. M. C. Machado. 1983. A New Dental Wear Pattern and Evidence for High Carbohydrate Consumption in a Brazilian Archaic Skeletal Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 61(1): 125–130.Find this resource:
Valcárcel Rojas, R., and C. Rodríguez Arce. 2005. El Chorro de Maíta. Social Inequality and Mortuary Space. In Dialogues in Cuban Archaeology, edited by L. A. Curet, S. Lee, and G. La Rosa, pp. 125–146. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
(p. 451) Valcárcel Rojas, R., and D. A. Weston, J. E. Laffoon, H. L. Mickleburgh, and A. Duijvenbode. 2011. El Chorro de Maíta: A Diverse Approach to a Context of Diversity. In Leiden in the Caribbean IV: From Prehistory to Ethnography in the Circum-Caribbean, edited by C. L. Hofman, and A. Duijvenbode, pp. 225–252. Sidestone Press, Leiden.Find this resource:
Versteeg, A.H., and K. Schinkel. 1992. The Archaeology of St. Eustatius: The Golden Rock Site. St. Eustatius Historical Foundation/Foundation for Scientific Research in the Caribbean Region, Amsterdam.Find this resource:
Versteeg, A.H., J. Tacoma, and P. Van de Velde. 1990. Archaeological Investigations on Aruba: The Malmok Cemetery. Archaeological Museum Aruba, Oranjestad.Find this resource:
Wagenaar Hummelinck, P. 1959. Indiaanse Skeletvonsten op Aruba en Curacao. New West Indian Guide 39: 77–92.Find this resource:
Walker, J.B. 1985. A Preliminary Report on the Lithic and Osteological Remains from the 1980, 1981, and 1982 Field Seasons at Hacienda Grande (12PSJ7–5). Paper presented at 10th International Congress for the Study of Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Lesser Antilles.Find this resource:
Walker, J.B. 2005. The Paso del Indio Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico: A Progress Report. In Ancient Boriquen: Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Native Puerto Rico, edited by P. E. Siegel, pp. 55–87. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Find this resource:
quote:LOL. You know that the so called whites in Wiercinski, were phenotypically like East Africans, not like European whites.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
Further evidence for WNA (White Native Americans)
R.Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica: Mexico,” Human Biology 68 (#3): 395-404.
group indian white
Paraiso 0.474 0.309
El Carmen 0.432 0.284
Veracruz 0.394 0.350
Saladero 0.386 0.312
Tamiahua 0.307 0.288
group indian white
Huichol 0.912 0.088
Totonaco 0.854 0.146
Chontal 0.783 0.167
Chol 0.778 0.222
Zapoteco 0.741 0.259
Huasteco 0.627 0.300
Range 8-33.7%, average= 24.7%
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%
Wiercinski, A. 1972 “Inter and intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, “ Proceedings 39th International Congress of Americanists Lima, 1970) vol. 1, pp. 231-252.
Percentage of Whites in Pre-Columbian Mexico from
p. 247 Table 9 Typological Compositions of Prehispanic Series of Crania in Mexico
Tlatilco (Pre Classic Period) 32.60%
Cerro las Mesas (Late Classic) 18.20%
Monte Alban (Classic, Pre and Post-Classic) 33.65%
Teotihuacan (Classic) 29.15%
Yucatan Maya (Classic, Post-Classic) 9.90%
quote:Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%?
If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
quote:LOL. You know that the so called whites in Wiercinski, were phenotypically like East Africans, not like European whites.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%?
If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
quote:Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%?
If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
]LOL. You know that the so called whites in Wiercinski, were phenotypically like East Africans, not like European whites.
quote:Again you are showing your ignorance of the methodology used by Wiercinski. The only "pure" European type recorded by Woercinski is the Ainuid. There is no pure black recorded at Tlatilco.
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.
In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.
The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.
quote:The methodology refers to that used by Wiercinski to get 13.5% "blacks" at Tlatilco, which Van Sertima and Winters, et al. use as evidence of an "African Presence'. However, with the same data and method we find 19.2% Europeans ("whites" at Tlatilco. I've revised the number down from 32.6%.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%?
If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
I for one, have no idea what supposed method "Afrocentrist" use. It's interesting to read how whites turned into brown so quickly. However not "black". Although, black exactly is brown but of a darker complexion.
quote:LOL. You're funny. Wiercinski provides examples of the races he claims the Olmec belonged too in his paper and none of them fit the profile for white Europeans.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:The methodology refers to that used by Wiercinski to get 13.5% "blacks" at Tlatilco, which Van Sertima and Winters, et al. use as evidence of an "African Presence'. However, with the same data and method we find 19.2% Europeans ("whites" at Tlatilco. I've revised the number down from 32.6%.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%?
If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
I for one, have no idea what supposed method "Afrocentrist" use. It's interesting to read how whites turned into brown so quickly. However not "black". Although, black exactly is brown but of a darker complexion.
What we are talking about here are WNA's i.e. hybrids between these "whites" and Native Americans--WNA's are brown. This is exactly how mestizos are made--brown. The problem, as I have decried before, is the total ad hoc nature of the term "black"-- on the one hand, 1% African blood make you "black" on the other so called "Black Native Americans" are called "black" although they too are brown.
Europeans in 1000 BC got to Tlatilco on the same magic carpet that brought the Mande to Tlatilco.
quote:Al that this demonstrates is that you still don't know how Wiercinski's methodology and nomenclature works. None of the images yyou post are examples of what Wiercinski would call pure white. again:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:LOL. You're funny. Wiercinski provides examples of the races he claims the Olmec belonged too in his paper and none of them fit the profile for white Europeans.
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:The methodology refers to that used by Wiercinski to get 13.5% "blacks" at Tlatilco, which Van Sertima and Winters, et al. use as evidence of an "African Presence'. However, with the same data and method we find 19.2% Europeans ("whites" at Tlatilco. I've revised the number down from 32.6%.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Let's use a metaphor, can you explain how these alleged whites got there at pre-Columbia?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Wiercinski used the exact same sample and methodology that Afrocentrics use to claim that there were 13.5% Africans at Tlatilco, but they don't mention that he also found many more Europeans there-32.6% My White Native Americans are as valid as Winters's Black Native Americans.
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
^Pre Columbian? How did he manage to do that? How did he determine these where " whites"?
Where are the sites scenes?
Wiercinski also finds a large percentage of whites i pre-Columbian skeletons . Range 9.9-33.7%?
If they were white like the colonialists as you claim, why did they slaughtered them by the millions?
You didn't respond to the question, why no early colonialists spoke of whites. Rather of "Indians". Which they confused with East Indians. East Indians at the coast are heavy dark pigmented.
White Native Americans (WNA) are not "white" they are brown; just like BNA's a not"black" but brown.
I for one, have no idea what supposed method "Afrocentrist" use. It's interesting to read how whites turned into brown so quickly. However not "black". Although, black exactly is brown but of a darker complexion.
What we are talking about here are WNA's i.e. hybrids between these "whites" and Native Americans--WNA's are brown. This is exactly how mestizos are made--brown. The problem, as I have decried before, is the total ad hoc nature of the term "black"-- on the one hand, 1% African blood make you "black" on the other so called "Black Native Americans" are called "black" although they too are brown.
Europeans in 1000 BC got to Tlatilco on the same magic carpet that brought the Mande to Tlatilco.
Below are the racial types identified by Wiercinski:
Equatorial Type
Dongolan Type
Sub-Pacific and Bushmanoid-Armenoid
Anatolian
.
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/518577955_fcdc244487_zpshy3q8wcf.jpg.html]
