quote:

---

Outside Africa, only one
sample, a Mayan, had the G allele.

---

- Need more than one sample.

- Need to determine 'when' this allele was aquired.

- There are likely millions of people of African descent throughout central and south America.

- A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
This is good information but there have been many Mayans found carrying African genes. Check out the following for more information:

Alternative Olmec Origins




Here is another good site discussing Mayan genetics:

Africanized Mayan People
 

---

Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
 
I think it's important to know when those alleles were actually brought in.
 

---

Posted by KaBa Un Hru (Member # 4547) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
This is good information but there have been many Mayans found carrying African genes. Check out the following for more information:

Alternative Olmec Origins




Here is another good site discussing Mayan genetics:

Africanized Mayan People

---

quote:

---

The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.

But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures

---

quote:

---

Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] *CANNOT* be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States.. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.

---

quote:

---

My question to that would be ... who are the Oceanic people and where does their heritage lay. If there is no Oceania looking Natives prior to modern photo's of people who favor the statues then that can easily be summed up as having Olmec heritage and not an Oceania people aside from the Olmec.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol::
- A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.

---

quote:

---

The comparison of the Olmec facial features to that of the Mayans is only one comparison. We have to take into consideration the fact that the Mayans were *NOT* the only Native Americans but seemed to be the most POPULAR of them. Tho the Mayans and Olmec's look nothing alike, that doesn't mean there wasn't an Oceanic Native American tribe that didn't look like the Olmecs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
The Olmecs were not the first Africans to create a civilization in Mexico. These Africans came from the ancient Sahara and West Africa.



Africans founded many of the earliest civilizations in the New World. We do not know when these Blacks arrived in the Americas. Scientists theorize that over 5000 years ago a group of African settlers sailing along the West African coast, in their papyrus trading vessels were caught in a storm and drifted aimlessly out to sea. In the Atlantic ocean they were captured by the South Equatorial current and carried across the Atlantic towards the Americas.

We can assume that due to the ability of these explorers to navigate by the stars they were probably able to make a return trip to West Africa. Much of West Africa 5000 years ago was unoccupied. This means that the populations that later moved into West Africa were living in Middle Africa,and the Sahara. These people due to a different climate in the Sahara at this time traveled from community to community by sea. It seems logical to assume that one of these Paleo-African groups travelled down the long extinct rivers of Middle Africa and sailed out into the Atlantic Ocean and was carried to the Americas by the powerful currents found in the Atlantic Ocean.

Mexico and Central America were centers of African civilization 5000 years ago. In Belize , around 2500 B.C., we see evidence of agriculture. The iconography of this period depicts Africoids. And at Izapa in 1358 B.C., astronomer-priests invented the first American calendar. In addition numerous sculptures of blacks dating to the 2nd millennium B.C, have been found at La Venta, Chiapas, Teotihuacan and Tlatilco.


Chiapas Blacks

The African voyagers to the New World came here in papyrus boats. A stone stela from Izapa, Chiapas in southern Mexico show the boats these Africans came in when they sailed to the Americas. These boats were carried across the Atlantic ocean to Mexico and Brazil, by the North Equatorial current which meets the Canaries Current off the Senegambian coast. It is interesting to note that papyrus boats are still being built in West Africa today.

The earliest culture founded by Blacks in Mexico was the Mokaya tradition. The Mokaya tradition was situated on the Pacific coast of Mexico in the Soconusco region. Sedentary village life began as early as 2000BC. By 1700-1500 BC we see many African communities in the Mazatan region. This is called the Barra phase or Ocos complex.

During the Barra phase these Blacks built villages amd made beautiful ceramic vessels often with three legs. They also made a large number of effigy vessels.

The figurines of the Ocos are the most significant evidence for Blacks living in the area during this period. The female figurine from Aquiles Serdan is clearly that of an African woman.

Ocos Female

The Blacks of the Mokaya traditions were not Olmec. The civilization of the Mokaya traditions began 700 years before the Olmec arrived in Mexico.

In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement “Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”. M. Coe (1989), observed that “on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”.

Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).


Cherla
There continues to be no evidence that Olmec civilization originated in Mexico. R.A. Diehl, in The Olmecs (Thames & Hudson, 2004) wrote that “The identity of these first Olmecs remain a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the
Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 B.C. to resolve the issue” (p.25).

.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:
This is the dilemma. African slaves did not mix in with the Spaniards as modern historians suggest. This is what the argument is based on but we know that it the Spaniards had a hatred for Africans unlike that of Northern Europeans.

Many proclaim the evidence is based on Mexican African ancestry in an attempt to remove Africans from the continent[s], yet African skeleton remains have been found as far as South America. This is not based on solid information but speculations in regards to slaves and spaniard love relations. How do we know that the African-ness of Mexicans are based on Slaves an not Africans who were here prior to slavery? The story goes from what I've heard as a native Californian is: Mexicans are a mixture of Native Americans and Spaniards. There is no mention of African admixture. The African ancestry of Mexicans are in the Native Indians/original owners of Mexico (Olmec to Mayan to Aztec).

Here in America ... Africans and Spaniards rarely mix. In Mexico the Spaniards (the royals of Mexico) who poses as Mexican do not touch the dark population.

---

Some responses:
Spaniards are a minority in North America. If you mean Mexicans, they are not Spaniards! Mexico is basically an Indian (native American) country with mestizo offspring. As a result African slavery though existant was not as widespread but it still existed. The Europeans Spaniards interacted more with indigena groups because they were more numerous. The state of Vera Cruz is known to have a much more African presence due to its coastal area!
Spaniards are not the royals of MExico and have never been! The language influece is enduring and to does influence native psychology.

The Spaniards had no more of a hatred of Africans than any other. They knew more about the different tribal groups and as a result they preferrred certain Africans for slave work and others for bedroom work! The Fula and other Muslim Africans tended to be more refined so they served the same function as Malinche (read the story, albeit distorted).

Although the African stereotypical phenotype is long gone, the DNA presence is present!
 

---

Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
 
no the olmecs weren't african, stop taking history that's not your own gentlemen, thank ya'll .
 

---

Posted by KaBa Un Hru (Member # 4547) on :
 
yazid904 wrote:

----> Spaniards are a minority in North America. If you mean Mexicans, they are not Spaniards! <----


Believe me I know the difference between a Spaniard and a Mexican.

Now do your research on this .. you also said that Spaniards are not the the royals of Mexico and I beg to differ.

The more Native Indian one has the more that individual is closer to the lower class. The least amount of Native Indian one has the better chance they have at excelling in Mexico. When the Spaniards migrated to Mexico, all of them did not integrate with the Native Indian population and this is for certain.

There is a saying in Mexico in reference of the "white Spaniard" mixing with an Indian: "let us better the race".

9% of Mexico's population is 'White - Spaniard' out of a population of 107,449,525 as of July 2006. Mathematically, that equates to 9.670,457.025 people.

9.6 million Spaniards are still in Mexico and your arguing about what? I know the difference between Mexicans and Spaniards and I know the two do not like to be confused with each other, but it is a fact that all Spaniard that had to migrate into Mexico didn't mix with the Natives.

quote:

---

This theory sounds plausible. In many ways, it is appealing. Yet, there's just one little problem. After an experiment lasting nearly 500 years in Latin America, intermarriage has utterly failed to eliminate racial inequality. Mestizo nations like Mexico and mulatto nations like Brazil are bywords for vast concentrations of wealth among the *white ruling class* contrasted with extreme poverty among the darkest citizens. In fact, in Mexico racial segregation is worsening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
no the olmecs weren't african,
stop taking history that's not your own gentlemen,
thank ya'll .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
The reason they do it is they know so very little about Africa,
may possibly unconsciously dislike continental Africans, and/or
have a displaced minority mentality that focuses on peripherals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
no the olmecs weren't african,
stop taking history that's not your own gentlemen,
thank ya'll .

---

---

quote:

---

KaBa Un Hru:
R U serious? The Moors conquered and ruled the Spain for over 700 years and you mean to tell me that they don't have a personal problem deeply embedded within their psyche? When they regained their control after learning from the Moors the first thing they did was enslave them and then separate them throughout the New World so that they couldn't gather their strenght again.

As far as the African Muslims is concerned ... I guess they would be more so-called refined being that they were already broken by Muslims who stripped them of their tradition by means of violence. The West African Fuli were converts to Islam ... but if Islam taught that Slavery was good and that black should be slaves then the process of getting them must have been easy.

---

quote:

---

My challenge is to present a writing of Africa's
history that focuses on Africa and its diaspora
of genetic African lineage not to pick other
peoples' cultures and heritage and make it African
where it is not African in the least. And yes, where
it can be authenticated to be diasporan African
(and I as well as others have posted material on
Africans abroad) then it too is most assuredly a
vital part of Africa's story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
The reason they do it is they know so very little about Africa,
may possibly unconsciously dislike continental Africans, and/or
have a displaced minority mentality that focuses on peripherals.

---

quote:

---

You act as if the only Africans were slaves taken to the rest of the world by Europeans and Arabs. This may be your belief but I prefer to look at those Africans who explore the world on their own and made great achievements we all need to know more about.

You write what the Europeans have taught you about their slaves and the slaves of the Arabs.

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

Can you point me to the reference about blacks in Americas before Columbus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:
... African slaves did not mix in with the Spaniards as modern historians suggest.

. . . .

... I would like to start with this mythical story of the Spaniards mixing with African Slaves in MEXICO.

. . . .

... Mexicans are a mixture of Native Americans and Spaniards. There is no mention of African admixture.

---

quote:

---

Even the Spanish conquistadors brought African heritage with them, as descendants of the Iberians and the Moors of northern Africa who occupied Spain during the medieval era, said Hernández

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:
On 18 February 2005 Thought posted from
http://www.emporia.edu/news/archives/2004/may2004/hernandez_book.htm :

ESU prof publishes controversial Mexican history

For 150 years, Mexican schoolchildren have learned that their heritage lies in the marriage of Spanish colonial culture and the conquered races of Native America.

But if ESU assistant professor of Spanish Marco Polo Hernández Cuevas has his way, they’ll also begin to think of themselves as African.

Hernández’s new book “African Mexicans and the Discourse on Modern Nation” published this month by University Press of America exposes how Mexican institutions have systematically erased “Africaness” from national memory. Between 55 and 85 percent of Mexicans can trace their family back to African slaves, but cultural leaders have actively shunned this identity.

“The knowledge of our ancestors has been erased through education,” he said. “Schools have omitted the fact that we had a large African population throughout the Colonial Period which lasted 300 years.”

“It’s estimated that over 300,000 enslaved Africans were brought to Mexico during the colonial period, producing millions of offspring. Many of the major leaguers of the Mexican liberation movement were black themselves. "The last two top commanders of the movement, José María Morelos and Vicente Guerrero, as well as a significant number of other leaders and troops have now been identified as mulattoes pardos."

Even the Spanish conquistadors brought African heritage with them, as descendants of the Iberians and the Moors of northern Africa who occupied Spain during the medieval era, said Hernández. The modern Spanish language still contains over 4,000 Arabic words.

“We are African on our Spanish side, and African on our African side,” he said. “We are ‘Neo-Africans’ just as much as we are Amerindian or European.”

Hernández finds traces of African culture in many of Mexico’s national traditions – in its food, its music, its cultural icons and its national holidays.

The Black Virgin -- a representation of Virgin Mary with dark skin common throughout Spain, France and Mexico – is one example of African cultural influences. Hernández also points out that the battle commemorated by the national holiday of Cinco de Mayo was fought by African Mexican “maroons.”

His book describes how Mexican cultural leaders have rejected this African heritage, choosing instead to “whiten” Mexican literature, film and popular culture from 1920 to 1968, a period Hernández describes as the “cultural phase of the Mexican Revolution.”

Hernández has gotten the attention of leading scholars in the field of African Latino studies. Richard L. Jackson, professor emeritus at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada writes in the book’s foreward that “his work will contribute greatly to the ongoing discussion of race in the Americans and particularly in Mexico where his research largely stands alone.”

“The interdisciplinary approach he takes exemplifies the pervasive nature of the cult of whiteness and racism and their unfortunate byproducts in a nation that is far from white.”

However, Hernández would like to see his academic research influence identity and behavior throughout general society.

“Mexicans, Hispanics, Latinos and African Americans will recognize one another in our common African heritage and bridge the gap that divides us," he said.

=========================================
http://www.amazon.com/African-Mexicans-Discourse-Modern-Nation/dp/0761828583
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexican
=========================================

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:
... African slaves did not mix in with the Spaniards as modern historians suggest.

. . . .

... I would like to start with this mythical story of the Spaniards mixing with African Slaves in MEXICO.

. . . .

... Mexicans are a mixture of Native Americans and Spaniards. There is no mention of African admixture.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

There's much to uncover about "black history"
right at home on the continent. It takes hard
work to learn Africa's history. Many revelations
can be made by anyone willing to apply themself
to the task.

It's so much easier to pick ancient America, or
ancient Caucasus-Persian Gulf, or ancient India,
or modern Pacifica for that matter and try to
make African history of all or either of them.

However, the base of Africa's ancient history is
in Africa. Black Olmecs (yes there were some black
Olmecs), black Elamites (why of course they were
black), black Indians (two major varieties who
have no love for each other; tribals vs Dravidians),
black Fijians, Hawaians, Papuans, etc. (very many
Pacific islanders are black or as much so as the
miscegenated blacks of the Americas) -- none of
them substitute for taking up the daunting task
of African historiography.

My challenge is to present a writing of Africa's
history that focuses on Africa and its diaspora
of genetic African lineage not to pick other
peoples' cultures and heritage and make it African
where it is not African in the least. And yes, where
it can be authenticated to be diasporan African
(and I as well as others have posted material on
Africans abroad) then it too is most assuredly a
vital part of Africa's story.

You'll learn more about the orange by studying
what's under the peel than studying the peel to
the exclusion of its skin pulp and seed.

No, I'm not for a reactionary history of Africa
that bases itself on "Europe did thus and so, I
will search for where Africa did likewise".

Amani na mapenzi ndugu

---

 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Shukran lady Arwa.
 

---

Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
 
^Sir, why facial expression?

I know we two have been "Márquez & Llosa"--off and again. but your contributions here are worth reading and I enjoy very much.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Now Arwa, I know ya gotta be used to guys like me winka winka winkin atchoo by now. No? Yes, yes!
 

---

Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
 
^ oh, there we have, narcissism.
 

---

Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
 
AlTakruri
Just a question. How many mirrors do you possess?
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
I don't possess any mirrors. There's one in the
bathroom, another in the bedroom, (thought
about doing the wall-to-wall thing in the
livingroom and a ceiling mirror above the bed).

The mirrors I like best are the ones that reflect
from lovely ladies' eyes, ladies who graciously
accept and appreciate compliments.

So you may not want them from me but surely you
do get them from men who aren't hard to look at
(and I don't know a man in this world who believes
he's hard to look at. That's not narcicism, that's
self-confidence).

Forgive my bad. Promise never to wink at you again. oops!!!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol::
- A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.

---

Would you happen to have this study - if not do you know where I can find it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KaBa Un Hru:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol::
- A study of 'white' Brazilians showed that much of their mtdna was actually of Indian or African origin.

---

Would you happen to have this study - if not do you know where I can find it?

---

The Ancestry of Brazilian mtDNA Lineages
The white Brazilian population, paradoxically, seems to be an excellent resource with which to study the phylogeny of western- and central-African mtDNA.

In conclusion, our mtDNA study of a random sample of white Brazilians has revealed an astonishingly high matrilineal contribution of Amerindians and Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by X7aN:
I must say I'm glad to see us having this discussion. I've been studying this topic for years and my thoughts and opinions have varied over the years. I've found most of the discussion pretty interesting and informative. I'm especially glad to see Dr. Winters contributions.

I do have a comment for KaBa Un Hru. Your comments about Spaniards and African slaves not intermixing due to hatred towards blacks as a result of Moorish occupation of Spain is wrong. Puerto Rico and the Dominican republic are two places where you find the vast majority of people are of mixed Spanish and African decent. The Spanish while just as racist as the northern europeans, tended to be a bit more flexible in their attitudes towards race mixing in the new world.

Here is an interesting link regarding one brother's hypothesis regarding this:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=4125

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by X7aN:
... The Spanish [...], tended to be a bit more flexible in their attitudes towards race mixing in the new world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Forgive my bad. Promise never to wink at you again. oops!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

I don't possess any mirrors. There's one in the
bathroom, another in the bedroom, (thought
about doing the wall-to-wall thing in the
livingroom and a ceiling mirror above the bed).

---

That's a bad excuse, AlTakruri.

You can go to Wall Mart, and with super glue of 0.99 $ and 60cm X 60cm piece of mirrors each 2$ , you can turn your livingroom into a ceiling and wall-to-wall mirror. Of course, it depends how stingy you are
 

---

Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
 
When someone asks in Spanish ' y donde esta tu abuelita? (and where is your grandmama?) they are saying they either know your grandma is African (usually) or indigena, OR they see it and they are seeing if you are proud of your roots? Depends who is arsking!

Garifuna in Belize, were originally from the island of St Vincent but they are scattered in in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua. They were originally Caribs from St Vincent but over time the Afro Caribs groups were more numerous to the extent that they spoke the Carib language and transplanted it to Central America!
Guyana and Surinam also share the same historical reference of cimarrones (escaped African slaves) finding refuge with the various Carib or other indigena and surviving in the jungle. They are sometimes called 'Bush Negroes' in Surinam and parts of Guyana.
 

---

Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
 
Aw naw, hell naw!! Iffen I do it, it'll be a totally contracted
professional job where my money goes. I want the lady to
see she and me, not some cheap funhouse distortion or thin,
frosted over, "costume jewelry" no quality reflection.

Ain't you never been in a pleasure dome at a resort?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arwa:
That's a bad excuse, AlTakruri.

You can go to Wall Mart, and with super glue of 0.99 $ and 60cm X 60cm piece of mirrors each 2$ , you can turn your livingroom into a ceiling and wall-to-wall mirror. Of course, it depends how stingy you are

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Even the Spanish conquistadors brought African heritage with them, as descendants of the Iberians and the Moors of northern Africa who occupied Spain during the medieval era, said Hernández

---

^ Southern Europeans also brought Malaria with them to the "New world".

Permit a digression...

We used to have self described Latino poster, [Salsa-something] who, for whatever reason...tried to argue that it was Africans who killed the Indians by bringing Malaria, which is and *African* disease.

Of course he pretended not to understand the parodox and hypocrisy of defining Malaria as and ethnically African disease.

Marlaria is likely older than homo sapiens, which means the original African homo sapiens had Malaria, and spread it throughout the world....China, Australia, etc..

What sustains Malaria in humans is a tropical environment.

That New world Indians 'lost' Malaria indicated that much of their ancestry must indeed have migrated across the Malaria free North Bering straight passage.

However...Southern Europeans have had Malaria since at least the Neolithic. [it's not clear that Southern Europe was ever historically Malaria free]

So both Europeans and Africans brought Malaria with them to the New world, and for the same reasons....they came from areas of the world that still had Malaria.

The final Irony of "Salsa's" attempt to 'blame' Malaria on African is that he uses the same fallacy of logic of the Afrocentrists who try to define Australian Aborigines, Southern Indians and others as Africans.

Here then is the point to be grasped....

These peoples are only Africans in the sense that all people are. This means that Homo sapiens is African as a species. Likewise, Malaria is a disease of the species Homo sapiens.

The ethnic *distinctions* between Africans, Europeans, Asians and others can by definition only exist from the time the people settle outside of Africa. Prior to this there are only different African ethnic groups, and no Eurasians at all.

In turn, the descendants of these 1st OOA migrants are non African....in the only sense that anyone can be.

---

I see you are still up to your usual distortions.
Fact: Malaria is a disease that, like humans, has an African origin. Fact: both Europeans and Africans had developed major changes from exposure to Malaria. Fact: such changes were not seen in Native American populations. Nor did they have immunity to African Yellow Fever.

How about addressng the facts instead of trying to make strawmen?
 

---

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :
 
Contemporary Mexicans look like Africans because of mixing with Africans since Olmec times and especially during the African slave trade.

Nice try. They have found those features in Amazonian and Fuegean people with no admixture at all. In fact, many of those pictures are of said people.



The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.

The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.

But not that African heritage is pre-colonial, or that the features I have shown are based on African admixture.

Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.

The Underhill study showed that African admixture in the Maya was rare if anything if they found a Y-Chromosome from Africa in only one Maya from their entire study.

Underhill's article can be seen here:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/93/1/196"
A fact that Clyde likes to ignore is that the mtDNA contribution to the Native population from Africa is virtually non exist.

Per Dr. Ricardo Cerda-Flores

http://hgm2003.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopOrals/Workshop08/hgm057.html
http://hgm2003.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/WorkshopPoster08/hgm239.html
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Genetics%20and%20Biotechnology/Jones%20DNA.pdf
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Genetics%20and%20Biotechnology/Jones%20DNA.pdf

And Guthrie is no doctor, but an industrial chemist and a known hyperdiffusionist who writes fro NEARA a hyperdiffusionist magazine.

The HLA allele group A*31 (that is, allele A*310102, the most usual of the A*31 alleles) has a wide distribution and occurs in populations of all continents. The possibility of an "early intercourse between Brazil and Africa" in [u]not[/u] supported by the frequencies of this allele in some African and Amerindian populations. In fact, HLA data (various loci / many alleles) support the hypothesis of Asian origin. Even the many HLA alleles seen only in Amerindians of (nowadays) Latin America and nowhere else (notice that A*31 is [u]not[/u] one of these alleles) are most easily explained by local origin, involving a set of ancestral alleles brought to America by the Asian founder populations.

In summary: the global distribution of the A*31 allele does not support and early direct contact between African and American populations. The most plausible explanation for the high frequency seen in Amerindians and in some other populations is random genetic drift and natural selection.

For a discussion about the HLA polymorphism in Amerindians (origins of alleles vs. origins of the Amerindians), see:

Parham P, Arnett KL, Adams EJ, Little A-M, Tees K, Barber LD, Marsh SGE, Ohta T, Markow T, Petzl-Erler ML. Episodic evolution and turnover of HLA-B in the indigenous human populations of the Americas. Tissue Antigens 50:219-232, 1997.

Prof. Dr. M. Luiza Petzl-Erler, Genetics

HLA is a system which is very likely under very strong natural selection, though we may not necessarily understand the nature of such selection in any particular case. Strong selection can alter allele frequencies very fast - 1000 times faster that fluctuations in neutral genes usually occur. Furthermore, looking to some other and more neutral genetic systems - such as mtDNA - there is not a slightest hint about Pre-Columbian gene flow between Africa (Sahara or sub-Saharan alike) and Americas. One may say that such a flow did not involve women (a reasonable explanation). However - the Y chromosome is a very unreliable marker system here because virtually all Amerind Y chromosome pools of different tribes encompass a considerable, sometimes very large share, of European, and depending on tribe, European and African Y chromosomes.

Finally - Amerind tribal gene frequencies are in general very spotty - people believe that this is because of random genetic drift in small isolated populations. Therefore - frequency differences even in an order of magnitude scale are not really surprising.

Dr. Richard Villems, Genetics
This section of chromosome #5 is the weapons factory for our species's eternal war against germs. Its genes produce the lymphocytes and antibodies that defend us. Because of this, it has two features that make it unsuitable for tracking migrations, in my view. First, it evolves and mutates at a phenomenal rate. Nearly every generation carries some new twist in this section of DNA. (You can see why this must be. If it were not so, the germs would have won long ago.) The [Guthrie's] article also mentions other markers (including the cde blood types, other blood proteins, and mtDNA). Judging by those observations, it appears to me that the author may tend to interpret evidence of admixture as evidence of precolumbian transoceanic contact, rather than as merely showing post-colonization mixing. It is not clear how he would tell them apart. Specifically, I have no problem with the sentence, "The surprisingly high frequencies in the Mande, Tigre, and Tuareg samples could be the result of early intercourse between Brazil and Africa." I just do not find it persuasive evidence of precolumbian contact. The mixed Portuguese in colonial Brazil imported huge numbers of mixed slaves from northwest Africa.

Dr. Frank Sweet, Molecular Anthropology

The use of mtDNA and Y-chromosome uses sections that are not adaptive so that mutation and thus the distributions are due to random occurrences. HLA however depend on what exposure the populations have been exposed to. If different populations are exposed to the same infections, they will end up with similar HLAs even though then may not be related or ever in contact. I'm sure people try to compensate for that, but inherently HLA will be less accurate.

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Anthropology

Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.

Another fast and loose one. Green et all does not claim that as part of their study.

Lance D. Green, James N. Derr, and Alec Knight. 2000 "mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central,"[u] American Journal of Human Genetics[/u] 66:989-998,
"Today, the number of Mexicans with African heritage is not known; however, some suggest that as much as 75% of the modern Mexican population has some African ancestry (Muhammad 1995). Estimation of African contribution to the genetic heritage of Mexico may now be accomplished through identification of population of origin by use of diagnostic, discrete character, molecular genetic markers. Such analyses will ultimately provide a more accurate understanding of Mexican history and culture."
He is quoting an Afrocentric publication, not a scientific study.

Muhammad JS (1995) "Mexico and Central America". In: Minority Rights Group (ed)[u] No longer invisible: Afro-Latin Americans today[/u]. Minority Rights Publications, London, pp 163-180

The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.

Again, I would ask you give Muhammad and your source for this claim. Most admixture is concentrated in certain regions, and admixture in Native populations has been much less.


Sure there is a large population in Mexico that has African ancestry, but this does not account for all native American appearance.

In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.

The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.


Again playing fast and loose with the facts. These regions were also the most populated by African slaves, Migration from American slaves, and Jim Crow escapees. It is logical than in the city and mestizo populations you will find high levels of African admixture. But in the Indigenous populations the admixture s significantly less. The only native admixture study you cite there is Lisker with one finding of 5% admixture and the other of .08% African admixture. Now let me guess what you are claiming, that these minimal mixtures from residual contact with more populated areas influenced their appearance? Lily White Americans show more admixure from Africa than this and they sure don't look like the Olmecs.

But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.

And the Mayans are not the only indigenous population, nor is the Mayan population uniform. You seem to forget Peñon Woman and Luzia. The look has been around for much longer than any supposed African expedition.

This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.


No we can't. Mayans wearing black paint but with the exact same facial types as other Mayans do not count. First you claim that the faces of Mayas are evidence Natives did not have these fatures and then you want to use black painted Mayans with the exact same features portrayed. Nice try oh fast and loose one.

African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people.

Already have disproven that, one Tlatilco was not an Olmec site, and, two, the skeletons were ot African but that Wiercinski, with an outdated racialist system claimed 14% of them had some African like features.

Lisker et al, noted that "The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast". Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes".

Nice try again. Lisker indicated that in most places evidence of admixture had been shown, but not that heavy admixture existed in native populations. As these population did not live in total isolation it is only logical some admixture occured. Not so with the indigenous populations inside the deep Amazon and Tierra del Fuego, where these features still exist without African admixture.

In fact, in Lisker's study of most native populations, they did not use a trihybrid analysis because of no African admixture found, only with the Cora and Chontal, was this done. Because one Cora and two Chontal we found with African admixture.

The question Lizker had was how the Cora with lower admixture than the Huichol had African admixture. Simple. Escaped slaves. Now note that the Huichol showed no African Admixture, yet most of the pictures claimed by Cyde to be of Admixed Indians are of Huichol indians. I guess it must be th European in them that gave them that look. Not
Lisker's full article for those who don't like to be bamboozled.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199606/ai_n8744183/print
 

---

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :
 
I see Clyde is still trying to sell his mythology with smoke and mirrors. Let us recapitulate the last discussion.

Claim: Olmec sculptures have obvious African Traits

Fact: Broad Noses and lips exist in many populations around the world including Native Americans and those features have been seen since the first Native Americans arrived.

Furthermore no such sculptures have been found in any Mande regions.

Claim: It is a White conspiracy to attack the Afro-Olmec claims

Fact: The biggest detractors have been an Afro American archeologist, an Afro-Puerto Rican Professor and a Mexican anthropologist.

http://anthropology.buffalo.edu/Faculty/barbour.htm

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/lastudies/gabrielhaslipviera.htm

http://www.prdream.com/patria/centro/10_30_01/bio-haslip.html

http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0198/019827.cfm

Claim: Genetics shows African ancestry in Native American populations.

Fact: African ancestry is only found in populations close to African presences from colonial times and only Y chromosome admixture has shown any significant presence.

Furthermore, no natural defenses existed for either Yellow Fever or Malaria, which would have existed if prior contact had occurred.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/o/oldstone-viruses.html

Claim: Olmec skeletons have been identified as being Negroid.

Fact: No Olmec skeletons have been found to date. The site of the bones was Tlatilco, a non Olmec culture. The Tlatilco skeletons that were evaluated by Wiercinski were claimed 14% Negroid (out of the three options of his outdated studies: Black, White and Yellow). With this same methodology, Wiercinski claimed that than 76% of Egyptians were White; a true testament of inaccuracy.

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/meso/meso/rossum.html

Claim: Africans are closer genetically to Native Americans than Australian Aborigines.

Fact: Native Americans are closer to Australian Aborigines than Africans.

http://www.friesian.com/trees.htm
 

---

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :
 
Dental variation among four prehispanic Mexican populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Haydenblit+R%22%5BAuthor%5D
Haydenblit R
Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.

In this paper, the dental morphology of prehispanic Meso-american populations is described, compared, and examined within the context of New World dental variation. Twenty-eight morphological dental traits were studied and compared in four samples of prehispanic Mexican populations. After eliminating intra- and interobserver error, the dental morphological characteristics observed show evidence of heterogeneity among the populations. In particular, the oldest population, Tlatilco(1300-800 BC), was significantly different from the other three groups, Cuicuilco (800-100 BC), Monte Alban (500 BC-700 AD) and Cholula (550-750 AD). When the four samples were compared to other Mongoloid populations, either univariately or multivariately, it was observed that the Mexican groups did not follow a strict Sinodont (characteristic of Northeast Asia)/Sundadont (characteristic of Southeast Asia) classification (Turner [1979] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 51:619-636). From the traits examined, 27% presented frequencies consistent with Sinodont variation, while 73% of the traits showed similar incidence to Southeast Asian groups. Multivariately, the Mexican populations were found to fit an overall Sundadont classification. These results indicate that there is more dental morphological variation among American Indian populations than previously shown.

Note that ALL Tlatilco (Wiercinski) skeletons were either sinodont or sundadont. Not ONE modern African population is sundadont or sinodont. So much for the Nubian or Mande theories.
Wiercinski. Supposed claim that he proved Africans were in the Americas.

Let's forget his methodology was obsolete. What exactly did he say?

In Tlatilco 21.2% (31.8 at Cerro de las Mesas) where (supposedly) Lapponoid:
[img]The image “http://library.thinkquest.org/27518/lapps.gif[/img]

18.3 % (4.5% CDLM) were (s) Armenoid


10.6 % (13.6 % CDLM) were (s) Ainuid + Arctic


36.5 % (45.3 % CDLM) were (s) Pacific


13.5 (4.5 % CDLM) (s) Equatorial + Bushmenoid

Now, I can find all those old world looks right in the Native American populations. Furthermore, Clyde Winters never mentions the fact that the studies showed that it was mostly the females that supposedly had the more "Black" looking traits in the skeletons, yet 0 mtDNA from Africa has been found in Native American populations.
Yamana populations that match closely that of other populations like Luzia, the Fuegueans, etc. show the typical "African" look.


Yet, their mtDNA is a subset of the standard Native American haplogroups, and does NOT match African. Their dental patterns are Sundadont (matching SE Asia, or less closely to Australasia, but NOT matching Africa).

"Craniometric data from the three extinct tribes that inhabited Tierra del Fuego (Selk'nam, Yamana, and Kawaskar) were gathered following Howells's measurement technique"........"A principal component analysis (PCA) generated from the correlation matrix shows that Fueguians fall as outliers with respect to the typical Mongoloid morphology"................ "Fueguian groups have a morphological pattern that is very distinct from that of other present-day Amerindian groups, with the exception of the Eskimos".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1605316&dopt=Abstract

Negritos, Australian aborigines, and the "proto-sundadont" dental pattern: the basic populations in east Asia, V.
http://www.hawaii.edu/geog_mr/ssci150online/09-colonization/fiedel.pdf#search=%22sundadont%20lapa%20vermelha%22
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
^^^^^Up all of this garbage has already been posted by Djehuti.

Jaime your post does not in anyway dispute the African origin of the Olmecs.

My most interesting finding to date is the discovery of an obituary of one of the Olmec rulers Bi Po.


This obituary is found on the Cascajal Tablet. The name Bi Po is evident in signs 53 and 45. The same sign appears accross the helmit (headband) of this Olmec King and the pattern hanging on the side of the face. Both of these artifacts are from San Lorenzo.


 

---

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :
 
Clyde, why is it that in all your supposed translations, you can never post the exact images of where you are seeing the supposed words on each rock? I have yet to see you show any such consistency. Also why is it that in your translations the only words that seem to be used are mono or bi-silabic? Where are the multi sylabic words common in Mande?
Show us exactly where you see your supposed Mande writing on the Cascajal tablet by tracing each Mande symbol.
The only time you ever have semi done this was on your supposed translation of the supposed writing of the Comalcalco bricks.

Your supposed "Rosetta Stone."
Yet when we look at actual bricks, we do not see your supposed Mande Writing.

So let us look at the sketches that you have of this supposed Rosetta like brick.

And there you supposedly see

Seems to me you are just arbitrarily choosing lines on your supposed etcha a sketch Mande side and trying to make them match a Vai syllabary.

So why don't you show us your updated Olmec syllabary to see consistency?
Here is a Vai syllabary.

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
It is not peculiar to find Indians in these areas with African features. Blacks lived in South America also. Have you forgotten Jaime that the earliest natives of Brazil were Africans according to Neves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:
Contemporary Mexicans look like Africans because of mixing with Africans since Olmec times and especially during the African slave trade.

Nice try. They have found those features in Amazonian and Fuegean people with no admixture at all. In fact, many of those pictures are of said people.



The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.

The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.

But not that African heritage is pre-colonial, or that the features I have shown are based on African admixture.

Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.

The Underhill study showed that African admixture in the Maya was rare if anything if they found a Y-Chromosome from Africa in only one Maya from their entire study.

Underhill's article can be seen here:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/93/1/196"
A fact that Clyde likes to ignore is that the mtDNA contribution to the Native population from Africa is virtually non exist.

Per Dr. Ricardo Cerda-Flores

http://hgm2003.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopOrals/Workshop08/hgm057.html
http://hgm2003.hgu.mrc.ac.uk/Abstracts/Publish/WorkshopPosters/WorkshopPoster08/hgm239.html
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Genetics%20and%20Biotechnology/Jones%20DNA.pdf
http://www.iiirm.org/publications/Articles%20Reports%20Papers/Genetics%20and%20Biotechnology/Jones%20DNA.pdf

And Guthrie is no doctor, but an industrial chemist and a known hyperdiffusionist who writes fro NEARA a hyperdiffusionist magazine.

The HLA allele group A*31 (that is, allele A*310102, the most usual of the A*31 alleles) has a wide distribution and occurs in populations of all continents. The possibility of an "early intercourse between Brazil and Africa" in [u]not[/u] supported by the frequencies of this allele in some African and Amerindian populations. In fact, HLA data (various loci / many alleles) support the hypothesis of Asian origin. Even the many HLA alleles seen only in Amerindians of (nowadays) Latin America and nowhere else (notice that A*31 is [u]not[/u] one of these alleles) are most easily explained by local origin, involving a set of ancestral alleles brought to America by the Asian founder populations.

In summary: the global distribution of the A*31 allele does not support and early direct contact between African and American populations. The most plausible explanation for the high frequency seen in Amerindians and in some other populations is random genetic drift and natural selection.

For a discussion about the HLA polymorphism in Amerindians (origins of alleles vs. origins of the Amerindians), see:

Parham P, Arnett KL, Adams EJ, Little A-M, Tees K, Barber LD, Marsh SGE, Ohta T, Markow T, Petzl-Erler ML. Episodic evolution and turnover of HLA-B in the indigenous human populations of the Americas. Tissue Antigens 50:219-232, 1997.

Prof. Dr. M. Luiza Petzl-Erler, Genetics

HLA is a system which is very likely under very strong natural selection, though we may not necessarily understand the nature of such selection in any particular case. Strong selection can alter allele frequencies very fast - 1000 times faster that fluctuations in neutral genes usually occur. Furthermore, looking to some other and more neutral genetic systems - such as mtDNA - there is not a slightest hint about Pre-Columbian gene flow between Africa (Sahara or sub-Saharan alike) and Americas. One may say that such a flow did not involve women (a reasonable explanation). However - the Y chromosome is a very unreliable marker system here because virtually all Amerind Y chromosome pools of different tribes encompass a considerable, sometimes very large share, of European, and depending on tribe, European and African Y chromosomes.

Finally - Amerind tribal gene frequencies are in general very spotty - people believe that this is because of random genetic drift in small isolated populations. Therefore - frequency differences even in an order of magnitude scale are not really surprising.

Dr. Richard Villems, Genetics
This section of chromosome #5 is the weapons factory for our species's eternal war against germs. Its genes produce the lymphocytes and antibodies that defend us. Because of this, it has two features that make it unsuitable for tracking migrations, in my view. First, it evolves and mutates at a phenomenal rate. Nearly every generation carries some new twist in this section of DNA. (You can see why this must be. If it were not so, the germs would have won long ago.) The [Guthrie's] article also mentions other markers (including the cde blood types, other blood proteins, and mtDNA). Judging by those observations, it appears to me that the author may tend to interpret evidence of admixture as evidence of precolumbian transoceanic contact, rather than as merely showing post-colonization mixing. It is not clear how he would tell them apart. Specifically, I have no problem with the sentence, "The surprisingly high frequencies in the Mande, Tigre, and Tuareg samples could be the result of early intercourse between Brazil and Africa." I just do not find it persuasive evidence of precolumbian contact. The mixed Portuguese in colonial Brazil imported huge numbers of mixed slaves from northwest Africa.

Dr. Frank Sweet, Molecular Anthropology

The use of mtDNA and Y-chromosome uses sections that are not adaptive so that mutation and thus the distributions are due to random occurrences. HLA however depend on what exposure the populations have been exposed to. If different populations are exposed to the same infections, they will end up with similar HLAs even though then may not be related or ever in contact. I'm sure people try to compensate for that, but inherently HLA will be less accurate.

Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Anthropology

Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.

Another fast and loose one. Green et all does not claim that as part of their study.

Lance D. Green, James N. Derr, and Alec Knight. 2000 "mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central,"[u] American Journal of Human Genetics[/u] 66:989-998,
"Today, the number of Mexicans with African heritage is not known; however, some suggest that as much as 75% of the modern Mexican population has some African ancestry (Muhammad 1995). Estimation of African contribution to the genetic heritage of Mexico may now be accomplished through identification of population of origin by use of diagnostic, discrete character, molecular genetic markers. Such analyses will ultimately provide a more accurate understanding of Mexican history and culture."
He is quoting an Afrocentric publication, not a scientific study.

Muhammad JS (1995) "Mexico and Central America". In: Minority Rights Group (ed)[u] No longer invisible: Afro-Latin Americans today[/u]. Minority Rights Publications, London, pp 163-180

The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.

Again, I would ask you give Muhammad and your source for this claim. Most admixture is concentrated in certain regions, and admixture in Native populations has been much less.


Sure there is a large population in Mexico that has African ancestry, but this does not account for all native American appearance.

In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.

The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.


Again playing fast and loose with the facts. These regions were also the most populated by African slaves, Migration from American slaves, and Jim Crow escapees. It is logical than in the city and mestizo populations you will find high levels of African admixture. But in the Indigenous populations the admixture s significantly less. The only native admixture study you cite there is Lisker with one finding of 5% admixture and the other of .08% African admixture. Now let me guess what you are claiming, that these minimal mixtures from residual contact with more populated areas influenced their appearance? Lily White Americans show more admixure from Africa than this and they sure don't look like the Olmecs.

But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.

And the Mayans are not the only indigenous population, nor is the Mayan population uniform. You seem to forget Peñon Woman and Luzia. The look has been around for much longer than any supposed African expedition.

This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.


No we can't. Mayans wearing black paint but with the exact same facial types as other Mayans do not count. First you claim that the faces of Mayas are evidence Natives did not have these fatures and then you want to use black painted Mayans with the exact same features portrayed. Nice try oh fast and loose one.

African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people.

Already have disproven that, one Tlatilco was not an Olmec site, and, two, the skeletons were ot African but that Wiercinski, with an outdated racialist system claimed 14% of them had some African like features.

Lisker et al, noted that "The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast". Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes".

Nice try again. Lisker indicated that in most places evidence of admixture had been shown, but not that heavy admixture existed in native populations. As these population did not live in total isolation it is only logical some admixture occured. Not so with the indigenous populations inside the deep Amazon and Tierra del Fuego, where these features still exist without African admixture.

In fact, in Lisker's study of most native populations, they did not use a trihybrid analysis because of no African admixture found, only with the Cora and Chontal, was this done. Because one Cora and two Chontal we found with African admixture.

The question Lizker had was how the Cora with lower admixture than the Huichol had African admixture. Simple. Escaped slaves. Now note that the Huichol showed no African Admixture, yet most of the pictures claimed by Cyde to be of Admixed Indians are of Huichol indians. I guess it must be th European in them that gave them that look. Not
Lisker's full article for those who don't like to be bamboozled.


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3659/is_199606/ai_n8744183/print

---

 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
Jaime/Mustafino

This is not the entire Vai script. Below we have the entire script.You can find out more about this writing at the site below:

Vai Writing

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:
Clyde, why is it that in all your supposed translations, you can never post the exact images of where you are seeing the supposed words on each rock? I have yet to see you show any such consistency. Also why is it that in your translations the only words that seem to be used are mono or bi-silabic? Where are the multi sylabic words common in Mande?
Show us exactly where you see your supposed Mande writing on the Cascajal tablet by tracing each Mande symbol.
The only time you ever have semi done this was on your supposed translation of the supposed writing of the Comalcalco bricks.

Your supposed "Rosetta Stone."
Yet when we look at actual bricks, we do not see your supposed Mande Writing.So let us look at the sketches that you have of this supposed Rosetta like brick.

Seems to me you are just arbitrarily choosing lines on your supposed etcha a sketch Mande side and trying to make them match a Vai syllabary.

So why don't you show us your updated Olmec syllabary to see consistency?
Here is a Vai syllabary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
^^^^^Up all of this garbage has already been posted by Djehuti.

Jaime your post does not in anyway dispute the African origin of the Olmecs.

My most interesting finding to date is the discovery of an obituary of one of the Olmec rulers Bi Po.


This obituary is found on the Cascajal Tablet. The name Bi Po is evident in signs 53 and 45. The same sign appears accross the helmit (headband) of this Olmec King and the pattern hanging on the side of the face. Both of these artifacts are from San Lorenzo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
It is not peculiar to find Indians in these areas with African features. Blacks lived in South America also. Have you forgotten Jaime that the earliest natives of Brazil were Africans according to Neves.

---

Again, avoiding answering the points I made. Walter Neves did not claim they were African. He used the terms Negroid and Australoid. He did not say they were Africans.

From Walter Neves himself:
http://www.ensp.fiocruz.br/eventos_novo/dados/arq252.ppt


Shoot, the Eskimo came closer than the Africans.
 

---

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Jaime/Mustafino

This is not the entire Vai script. Below we have the entire script.You can find out more about this writing at the site below:

Vai Writing

I have not changed my interpretation of the Olmec writing. This script is outlined at the following site:
Decipherment Olmec Writing

---

quote:

---

Winter's Comacalco brick interpretation was done by pulling out certain lines from hieroglyphs that should be read as a whole.

Maya and epi-Olmec have symbols that are to be read whole (easily demonstrated with Maya- which we can read now).

If you are going to use the methodology that isolated lines, wiggles and circles WITHIN a Mesoamerican glyph are to be the carriers of the message, you need to provide evidence (from someone else-- not citing yourself for everything) that this was an actual strategy.

How come this is not the way Lybico-Berber, Vai , or other African scripts are done. If not, Clyde could be accused, as Barry Fell was, of being able to read messages in the weathering cracks of rocks.

For example in his posting on Cascajal (which he insists in deciphering with his usual syllabary although the symbols are quite different from those of the epi-Olmec). 1) It turns out that the symbols he likes 45 and 53 are the same but also that symbol # 59 and 16 are identical. If one uses, his "Olmec syllabary" from the web site he links to, "po" is written with a triangle or a square (already very suspicious and loose).

Symbols # 45,53,59,16 are not and do not contain triangles or squares. Further the morpheme /po] in mande means "superlativ des blanc" i.e "whitest." Delafosse (1955) p. 596.;

Maya and epi-olmec are "logophonetic" not syllabic phonetic, i.e. the entire hieroglyph is read at once.

(There are some complications in Maya, Maya words can be written a couple of ways 1) logophonetic-- the whole word and 2) spelled out phonetically in that parts of the symbol are read out as phonemes to form the final word};

Why does Winter use Delafosse's paper for his Vai symbols and not Koelle's monograph that was written much earlier (1849-1854)?

Also, neither Keolle nor Delafosse break down the Vai script into single letters as Winter does. In both cases the symbols stand for an entire syllable. If Winters would reproduce really clear images of Delafosse {the ones he shows are so fuzzy and scribbled over that they are useless for someone else to see if Winters' is citing accurately.] He is not, neither Koelle nor Delafosse shows /po/ as a triangle, square or diamond-- actually it looks like a fancy S or N.

Why is Winters insisting on using Vai script to read Mande, when there are Mande scripts? Also we can show that there have been a number of changes in Vai script between 1849 and 1962 (Dalby's survey of indigenous scripts), if so, why does Winters think that one can automatically read something supposedly written in Vai script in 900 B.C. using the 1899 version? Further, Winters does not take into account in his proposed deciphering that Mande is a tonal language and that tones change the meaning of words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
It is not peculiar to find Indians in these areas with African features. Blacks lived in South America also. Have you forgotten Jaime that the earliest natives of Brazil were Africans according to Neves.

---

Again, avoiding answering the points I made. Walter Neves did not claim they were African. He used the terms Negroid and Australoid. He did not say they were Africans.

From Walter Neves himself:
http://www.ensp.fiocruz.br/eventos_novo/dados/arq252.ppt


Shoot, the Eskimo came closer than the Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Jaime/Mustafino

This is not the entire Vai script. Below we have the entire script.You can find out more about this writing at the site below:

Vai Writing

I have not changed my interpretation of the Olmec writing. This script is outlined at the following site:
Decipherment Olmec Writing

---

I still haven't seen you post the Olmec syllabary.

Some key points Bernard Ortiz de Montellano brings up:

quote:

---

Winter's Comacalco brick interpretation was done by pulling out certain lines from hieroglyphs that should be read as a whole.

Maya and epi-Olmec have symbols that are to be read whole (easily demonstrated with Maya- which we can read now).

If you are going to use the methodology that isolated lines, wiggles and circles WITHIN a Mesoamerican glyph are to be the carriers of the message, you need to provide evidence (from someone else-- not citing yourself for everything) that this was an actual strategy.

How come this is not the way Lybico-Berber, Vai , or other African scripts are done. If not, Clyde could be accused, as Barry Fell was, of being able to read messages in the weathering cracks of rocks.

For example in his posting on Cascajal (which he insists in deciphering with his usual syllabary although the symbols are quite different from those of the epi-Olmec). 1) It turns out that the symbols he likes 45 and 53 are the same but also that symbol # 59 and 16 are identical. If one uses, his "Olmec syllabary" from the web site he links to, "po" is written with a triangle or a square (already very suspicious and loose).

Symbols # 45,53,59,16 are not and do not contain triangles or squares. Further the morpheme /po] in mande means "superlativ des blanc" i.e "whitest." Delafosse (1955) p. 596.;

Maya and epi-olmec are "logophonetic" not syllabic phonetic, i.e. the entire hieroglyph is read at once.

(There are some complications in Maya, Maya words can be written a couple of ways 1) logophonetic-- the whole word and 2) spelled out phonetically in that parts of the symbol are read out as phonemes to form the final word};

Why does Winter use Delafosse's paper for his Vai symbols and not Koelle's monograph that was written much earlier (1849-1854)?

Also, neither Keolle nor Delafosse break down the Vai script into single letters as Winter does. In both cases the symbols stand for an entire syllable. If Winters would reproduce really clear images of Delafosse {the ones he shows are so fuzzy and scribbled over that they are useless for someone else to see if Winters' is citing accurately.] He is not, neither Koelle nor Delafosse shows /po/ as a triangle, square or diamond-- actually it looks like a fancy S or N.

Why is Winters insisting on using Vai script to read Mande, when there are Mande scripts? Also we can show that there have been a number of changes in Vai script between 1849 and 1962 (Dalby's survey of indigenous scripts), if so, why does Winters think that one can automatically read something supposedly written in Vai script in 900 B.C. using the 1899 version? Further, Winters does not take into account in his proposed deciphering that Mande is a tonal language and that tones change the meaning of words.

---

I would like you to honestly address both my statements and those of Bernard. Not just regurgitate your websites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
It is not peculiar to find Indians in these areas with African features. Blacks lived in South America also. Have you forgotten Jaime that the earliest natives of Brazil were Africans according to Neves.

---

Again, avoiding answering the points I made. Walter Neves did not claim they were African. He used the terms Negroid and Australoid. He did not say they were Africans.

From Walter Neves himself:
http://www.ensp.fiocruz.br/eventos_novo/dados/arq252.ppt


Shoot, the Eskimo came closer than the Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Hi where do Negroes live? Africa of course.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
My decipherment of the Olmec writing has been on-line for over ten years now. If you have not bothered to check out the script I will not waste my time discussing the signs here.

---

quote:

---

I use Delafosse because he provides the most extensive collection of Vai symbols.

---

quote:

---

I stand by my decipherments of Epi Olmec inscriptions. You can find them at the following sites:
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/hieromec.pdf
http://geocities.com/olmec982000/BartoloMural3.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/lettermixe.htm

---

quote:

---

It is clear that you can't read. If you read the documents associated with the Comalcalco brick you would have notice that the letter was not written by me.

---

quote:

---

In relation to the Comacalco brick, I translated the Olmec part of the brick, not the Mayan section.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Jaime you are indeed crafty. This paper has nothing to do with Luiza. This paper is discussing skeletal remains from the Lagoa Santa area. These skeletons are much later than the Luiza material.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You will do anything to try and mislead people . That is why you have been banned here several times and at Ta Seti.

Shame on you.

---

quote:

---

Dozens of skeletons have emerged from the caves dotting Lagoa Santa in eastern Brazil, but one in particular has recently caused a stir -- 25 years after it was dug up from a 40-foot-deep pit.

---

In fact Walter Neves' powerpoint slides state this.



it seems you are the one caught trying to make false claims.

quote:

---

Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World

Walter A. Neves* and Mark Hubbe
Laboratório de Estudos Evolutivos Humanos, Departamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, 05508-090 São Paulo, Brazil

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: waneves@ib.usp.br.

Edited by Richard G. Klein, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved October 28, 2005

Received August 18, 2005.

Abstract

Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between SouthAmerican Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.

Chronology of the Specimens

Since the excavations of Peter Lund at Sumidouro Cave in 1842/1843, the human skeletal remains recovered in Lagoa Santa have been assumed to be of great antiquity (6). However, only very recently has this assertion proved to be correct. From the original excavations of Lund until 1969, the only indication of an early date for the human skeletons found in Lagoa Santa was the cooccurrence in Sumidouro Cave of human and megafauna skeletal remains apparently deposited in the same sedimentary levels (7). A similar phenomenon was also observed by Harold Walter in the inner chamber of Mortuaria cave in 1935 (8).

The first professional archaeological excavations in Lagoa Santa were carried out by Wesley Hurt and Oldemar Blasi in 1956 (9). They were unable to find any association between human and megafauna remains in the seven rock-shelters excavated by them at Cerca Grande, the largest limestone outcrop in the region. However, many years after their fieldwork, two radiocarbon dates were reported by them (10). These two dates (9,720 ± 128 and 9,028 ± 120), obtained in Rock-Shelter 6, were the first direct evidence that a large number of human skeletons found in that area, including those uncovered by Hurt and Blasi in Cerca Grande, could be in fact of final Pleistocene/Early Holocene age.

The next contribution toward an improved chronological framework for the Lagoa Santa human skeletal remains came from the excavations of Lapa Vermelha IV, in the mid-1970s (11). The now famous “Luzia” skeleton was uncovered by the excavators 12 m below the surface of the rock-shelter, in a sedimentary deposit estimated by 14C dates on charcoal to be of final Pleistocene age (12).

---

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1317934

Try your lies on someone else.
 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 
I will not waste my time discussing this issue. The Luzia skeleton is much older than the skeletons in this study.

Luzia


.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
My decipherment of the Olmec writing has been on-line for over ten years now. If you have not bothered to check out the script I will not waste my time discussing the signs here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
[QB] I will not waste my time discussing this issue. The Luzia skeleton is much older than the skeletons in this study.

Luzia

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I will not waste my time discussing this issue. The Luzia skeleton is much older than the skeletons in this study.

Luzia


.

---

quote:

---

You can't go around calling people 'caucasian' because you decide out of race-megalomania that they 'resemble' you.

And the same goes for African.

---

quote:

---

In the last two decades, craniofacial comparisons
of early human skeletal remains from North,
Central, and especially South America with global
human morphological variation has generated
important new information about the settlement
of the Americas. Traditional ideas about the
number of migrations entering the New World in
prehistoric times have been extensively questioned
by these results (Neves and Pucciarelli, 1989, 1991,
1998; Steele and Powell, 1992, 1993, 2002;
Munford et al., 1995; Neves et al., 1998, 1999a;
Powell and Neves, 1999; Gonza´ lez-Jose´ et al.,
2001; Jantz and Owsley, 2001, 2003).
In a recent paper (Neves et al., 2003), some of
us presented supplementary evidence from Lagoa
Santa, central Brazil, that the Paleoamerican cranial
morphology is very different from that normally
found among late prehistoric and modern
Native Americans. While the latter resemble
modern northeastern Asians, the former resembles
Australo-Melanesians and Africans.

---

quote:

---

p. 408 Results
The first 13 principal components explain 76.6% of the original variation. Table 4 shows the scores obtained for each sample and the percentage of the total variance explained by each of the 13 principal components used here individually. Their scores were used to build the dendrogram of Fig. 3. The individual from Capelinha shows a close association with the four Paleoindian samples represented in the analysis. These samples form a major cluster
with Australians, Tasmanians, and Tolais. The other American samples appear to be associated with some Polynesians (Buriat and Moriori) and the European samples on a first level, and with the
remaining Asians, which cluster together, on a second level. All African samples appear clustered together, and distant to the Asian, European, and recent Amerindian samples. The cluster formed by Capelinha Burial II, Paleoindians, and Australians appears as the most distant cluster from all others.

Conclusions
p. 411. Even if few studies with large sample from single sites have been carried out so far with Paleoindians (see Neves et al., 2003, 2004, as examples of these studies), it is evident by now that
South America, Central America, and possibly North America were populated by human groups with a more generalized cranial morphology
before the arrival of the Mongoloids. Since this more generalized morphology (''Australo-Melanesian-like'') was also present in East Asia at the end of the Pleistocene, transoceanic migrations are not necessary to explain our findings.
As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of
origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998). Accordingly, a population that began to expand from Africa around 70 ka
reached southeast Asia by the middle of the late Pleistocene, carrying with it a cranial morphology characterized by long, narrow neurocrania and narrow, projecting faces. We postulate that after
reaching southeast Asia, this stem population gave rise to at least two different dispersions. One took a southward direction and arrived at Australia around 50 ka. Sometime between 50 and 20 ka
a second branch dispersed towards the north, and arrived in the Americas by the end of the Pleistocene, bringing with it the same cranial morphology that characterized the first modern humans.

---

quote:

---

From: Walter Neves
To: Jaime Pretell
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Luzia e os estudos de Lago Santa


YES, LUZIA WAS VERY MUCH INCLUDED!!! BEST REGARDS, VATO
----- Original Message -----
From: Jaime Pretell
To: waneves@ib.usp.br
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: Luzia e os estudos de Lago Santa


http://www.ensp.fiocruz.br/eventos_novo/dados/arq252.ppt

Professor, was Luzia included when you did these charts?

---

quote:

---

M.L. Sardi, et al. 2005. "South Amerindian Craniofacial Morphology: diversity and Implications for Amerindian Evolution," Am. J. Physical Anthropology 128: 747-756.

ABSTRACT; The most compelling models concerning the peopling of the Americas consider that modern Amerindians share a common biological pattern, showing affinities with populations of the Asian Northeast. The aim of the present study was to assess the degree of variation of craniofacial morphology of South American Amerindians in a worldwide context. Forty-three linear variables were analyzed on crania derived from American, Asian, Australo-Melanesian, European, South Saharan African, and Polynesian regions. South America was represented by seven Amerindian samples. In order to understand morphologic diversity among Amerindians of South America, variation was estimated using regions and local populations as units of analysis. Variances and FST values were calculated for each unit respectively. Both analyses indicated that morphologic variation in southern Amerindians is extremely high: an FST of 0.01531 was obtained for southern Amerindians, and values from 0.0371-0.1205 for other world regions. Some aspects linked to the time and mode of the peopling of the Americas and various microevolutionary processess undergone by the Amerindians are discussed. some of the alternatives proposed to explain this high variation include: a greater antiquity of the peopling than what is mostly accepted, a peopling by several highly differentiated waves, an important effect of genetic drift, and gene flow with Paleoamericans. A combination of some of these alternatives explains at least some of the variation.

---

quote:

---

The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 288A, Issue 12, Pages 1225 - 1233

Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures

Katerina Harvati, Timothy D. Weaver

Abstract

Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations. Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction.

---

quote:

---

Bernal, V., S. I. Perez and P N. Gonzalez Conicet. 2006. "Variation and Causal Factors of Craniofacial Robusticity in Patagonian Hunter-Gatherers from the Late Holocene." Am. J. Hum. Biol. 18:748-765


ABSTRACT Fueguian-Patagonian skulls have been characterized as some of the most robust of any modern crania. However, the causal factors of such robusticity remain unsettled. We assess within- and among-sample cranial robusticity of seven samples from continental Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, using geometric morphometric techniques. In addition, the biomechanical, phylogenetic, and climatic hypotheses proposed to account for robusticity in such samples are discussed. Two Amerindian samples of farmers and two early middle Holocene samples from South America were included. The results show: 1) large variation in craniofacial robusticity among Patagonian samples, with the highest robusticity in samples from south continental Patagonia and Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego, whereas central and north Patagonian samples display the same degree of robusticity as farmer samples; 2) that early middle Holocene samples display lower levels of robusticity than South Patagonian samples; and 3) strong association between latitude and craniofacial robusticity, with the most robust craniofacial morphologies occurring at the highest latitudes. In consequence, neither masticatory stress nor retention of ancestral features is supported by the morphological evidence analyzed. Hence it is hypothesized that endocrine changes related to cold climate may be a plausible explanation for several craniofacial features found in Fueguian and south continental Patagonian samples, such as their large masticatory component, and pronounced supraorbital ridge and glabellar region.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
^Neves never called Paleo-Americans "Africans", and it is plain in the very piece you are citing.

Saying that these people [Paleo-Americans] have 'affinities' with "Australo-Melanesians" and "Africans", does not in any way, form or fashion mean that the authors are saying that they are "Africans".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

^Neves never called Paleo-Americans "Africans", and it is plain in the very piece you are citing.

Saying that these people [Paleo-Americans] have 'affinities' with "Australo-Melanesians" and "Africans", does not in any way, form or fashion mean that the authors are saying that they are "Africans".

---

Definition Affinity:
a close similarity or relationship between two things because of qualities or features they both have.

He is saying they are like African which = African.

.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

Furthermore, even Walter Neves' school of methodology has been challenged.

quote:

---

M.L. Sardi, et al. 2005. "South Amerindian Craniofacial Morphology: diversity and Implications for Amerindian Evolution," Am. J. Physical Anthropology 128: 747-756.

ABSTRACT; The most compelling models concerning the peopling of the Americas consider that modern Amerindians share a common biological pattern, showing affinities with populations of the Asian Northeast. The aim of the present study was to assess the degree of variation of craniofacial morphology of South American Amerindians in a worldwide context. Forty-three linear variables were analyzed on crania derived from American, Asian, Australo-Melanesian, European, South Saharan African, and Polynesian regions. South America was represented by seven Amerindian samples. In order to understand morphologic diversity among Amerindians of South America, variation was estimated using regions and local populations as units of analysis. Variances and FST values were calculated for each unit respectively. Both analyses indicated that morphologic variation in southern Amerindians is extremely high: an FST of 0.01531 was obtained for southern Amerindians, and values from 0.0371-0.1205 for other world regions. Some aspects linked to the time and mode of the peopling of the Americas and various microevolutionary processess undergone by the Amerindians are discussed. some of the alternatives proposed to explain this high variation include: a greater antiquity of the peopling than what is mostly accepted, a peopling by several highly differentiated waves, an important effect of genetic drift, and gene flow with Paleoamericans. A combination of some of these alternatives explains at least some of the variation.

---

quote:

---

The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 288A, Issue 12, Pages 1225 - 1233

Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures

Katerina Harvati, Timothy D. Weaver

Abstract

Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations. Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction.

---

quote:

---

Bernal, V., S. I. Perez and P N. Gonzalez Conicet. 2006. "Variation and Causal Factors of Craniofacial Robusticity in Patagonian Hunter-Gatherers from the Late Holocene." Am. J. Hum. Biol. 18:748-765


ABSTRACT Fueguian-Patagonian skulls have been characterized as some of the most robust of any modern crania. However, the causal factors of such robusticity remain unsettled. We assess within- and among-sample cranial robusticity of seven samples from continental Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, using geometric morphometric techniques. In addition, the biomechanical, phylogenetic, and climatic hypotheses proposed to account for robusticity in such samples are discussed. Two Amerindian samples of farmers and two early middle Holocene samples from South America were included. The results show: 1) large variation in craniofacial robusticity among Patagonian samples, with the highest robusticity in samples from south continental Patagonia and Isla Grande of Tierra del Fuego, whereas central and north Patagonian samples display the same degree of robusticity as farmer samples; 2) that early middle Holocene samples display lower levels of robusticity than South Patagonian samples; and 3) strong association between latitude and craniofacial robusticity, with the most robust craniofacial morphologies occurring at the highest latitudes. In consequence, neither masticatory stress nor retention of ancestral features is supported by the morphological evidence analyzed. Hence it is hypothesized that endocrine changes related to cold climate may be a plausible explanation for several craniofacial features found in Fueguian and south continental Patagonian samples, such as their large masticatory component, and pronounced supraorbital ridge and glabellar region.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
While I disagree with Winters' designation of "African", in reference to what was referred to as 'resemblance', I fail to see how the abstracts above disprove Neves et al.'s findings about Paleo-Americans.

---

quote:

---

Luzia FITS perfectly with other PaleoIndians. As illustrated in Powell & Neves' Craniofacial morphology of the first Americans: Pattern and process in the peopling of the New World, PaleoIndians fall into several distinct clusters (most likely due to post-arrival genetic drift, but possibly due to different founding populations).... that most resemble Pacific (especially Australasian & Polynesian) & East Asian peoples. (Some of Luzia's "cluster" are found in North America, BTW, which DOES fit with a Beringian arrival route).

One interesting study is on a recently extinct (wiped out by disease & Spanish) Indian tribe called the Pericu, titled Craniometric evidence for Palaeoamerican survival in Baja California. Gonzalez said in interviews that she thought Penon Woman looked like them (but hasn't published craniometric comparisons). The study concluded that OF POPULATIONS IN THE AMERICAS, the (modern) Pericu most looked like Brazilian PaleoIndians such as Luzia's people. (What the abstract I linked to doesn't say, but the study's data tables reveals, is that they were also CLOSER to Native Americans in general than they were to ANY Old World people.... making hash of their suggestion that other modern Indians were somehow "not related" to the Pericu or the PaleoIndians). mtDNA evidence HAS linked the Pericu to other Native Americans, BTW (primarily haplogroup B, part of a gradient extending throughout North America).

The PaleoIndian Lagoa Santa people (Luzia's folk) overlap American Indian & East Asian features MORE than they do anybody else. And there is an Indian tribe called the Botocudo, from the same region of Brazil that the Lagoa Santa remains were found, who are described as having originally (the tribe has no fullbloods nowadays, but they DO have a good collection of older crania from fullblooded tribal members) been close matches for Lagoa Santa. I've REALLY wondered why Walter Neves didn't include them in his craniometric comparisons......

The Pericu of Baja California (only "recently" killed off, by the Spanish) show strong craniometric affinities to the Lagoa Santa paleoIndians, AND even closer ones to PaleoIndian (like Penon Woman) Archaic era samples from the Valley of Mexico. These PaleoIndian/Archaic samples, in turn, closely match modern Aztec samples. (Can you spell "biological continuity?")

Heh, something to recall is that if you don't sample the most related groups, OF COURSE you won't neccessarily "find" local affinities in your studies. The big fuss over Luzia & her kin came about because they were compared MOSTLY to Old World peoples..... & the Australian/Melanesian/Negrito/African (depending on who you asked) affinities were thus noted. This was in the context of claiming a "different" origin for them than for other "Mongoloid-type" Native Americans (who aren't actually mongoloid, but that's another story). Less mentioned, even today, is that the Lagoa Santa people (AND the Pericu) match up to other Native American tribes MUCH more closely than they match anybody in the Old World..... WHEN you use a decent sampling of Native American populations in the studies!

So, irregardless of whether several different populations migrated to the New World, or whether a single population came over and fragmented (sub-groups differentiating in isolation), the various "different types" of PaleoIndians all mixed together & modern Native Americans are ALL descended from ALL of them, to varying degrees depending on geographic location.

BTW, every single DNA study of PaleoIndian remains HAS revealed the common Native American mtDNA haplogroups. DNA studies haven't yet been completed on the Pericu per se, but we DO have them on a closely related tribe (much intermarriage, lived just north of them) called the Guaycura & for MANY surrounding tribes. The data reveals a SOLID cline of admixture, with no genetic discontinuities between the Pericu and any of their neighbors. Fuegians & Patagonians have also been claimed to show affinities to Lagoa Santa, and we DO have DNA studies on those. "Surprise" (not!)...... they possessed only the "normal" Native American mtDNA haplogroups.

Etc, etc. The fact is that American Indians are quite variable, and while you CAN find "extreme forms" here & there that don't match people's stereotypes of what Indians should look like, you ALSO find intermediates linking the extremes to the rest of the Native American population.

Remember, out of the entire set of Lagoa Santa remains, only a FEW (most notably Luzia) showed strong resemblance to Australasians (most overlap with American Indians, East Asians, etc)..... and Fuegians show only a so-so resemblance to Lagoa Santa.

I suspect what the first arrivals in the Americas were of SE Asian stock by way of coastal (or maybe even inland) NE Asia…. and were either a hybrid mix of some or all of what we’d nowadays call Australasians, Negritos, Austronesians, SE Asians, Taiwan Aborigines, Siberians, Japanese aborigines, Fillipinos, etc… or else were the undifferentiated ancestors of all those different populations (containing the genetic variation for that range of features).

Under this scenario, what we’re seeing is that genetic drift in certain isolated (inbred) early populations resulted in a certain number of people with features matching partially ancestral or distantly related strains (but who, along with their tribes, were nevertheless genetically/genealogically most closely related to other early populations in the Americas). Later, the blending together of these tribal groups (as populations increased, and started bumping elbows…. and other body parts… together.) erased the more extreme of these inbred phenotypes. Fuegians “might” have a larger percentage of their ancestry from 1-2 (more likely 2, given THEIR variation) of those differentiated early American populations, but they are still clearly Native American rather vs “Old World”. There are CLOSE genetic & phenotypic matches to certain Chilean tribes, for example, who are obviously related to them.

{at a later date}

a recent craniometric study involving a number of Botocudo remains revealed that at least some Fuegians AND LAGOA SANTA remains matched up to Botocudo. So.... "non-mongoloid predecessors who got wiped out by mongoloid latecomers", HELL! The Lagoa Santa people were directly ancestral to modern Brazilian Indians.

Walter Neves kept pushing claims that the Lagoa Santa paleoIndians, Luzia in particular, looked "Pacific" (Negrito, maybe generically Australoid or even African). And he & others gave unverified personal opinions that Fuegians looked similar to Lagoa Santa & so might be a relict population of them.

Of course, since Fuegians LOOKED Indian, they'd say "admixed relict population" to imply that features being only slightly off was due to admixture with regular Indians.

Problems with all this:

1) Lagoa Santa people were quite variable, ranging from the negrito looking Luzia AT ONE EXTREME...... to folk indistinguishable from modern South American Indians (Fuegians, certain Brazilian tribes, etc) at the other end. So "if" any different ancestry was involved, it was ALREADY present & mixed together at the time of the Lagoa Santa people (EARLY PaleoIndian, presumably pre-Clovis arrival in the Americas)..... i.e., we have NO evidence that any "pure" groups of this theorized type ever existed here, it's more likely variation already present in the initial arrivals. (Translation: First arrivals were either hybrids of Australoid/East Asians, or were a generic undifferentiated human type holding some features in common with both Australoids & East Asians. We've no reason to assume two waves of different types, no reason to assume a single wave of multiple "pure" types).

2) Craniometric studies HAVE been conducted that closely match up Lagoa Santa with other PaleoIndians & with certain MODERN or recently extinct tribes from both Americas. When Neves made his claims, he was (carefully?) NOT comparing Lagoa Santa to a representative sample of Amerindian diversity. When OTHER researchers DID toss in groups such as modern Brazilian Botocudo (same province as Lagoa Santa finds), Fuegians, Pericu, Valley of Mexico tribes "of various antiquities", Ecuadorian tribes, etc, etc..... suddenly close matches start showing up.

3) DNA studies on Fuegians, past and present, show ONLY the conventional Native American mtDNA lineages. There is nothing that links them more closely to Old World peoples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
What is the Neves "school of thought" that is being challenged? I don't recall reading anywhere where Neves claimed that 'cranio-facial' pattern alone can prove 'genetic closeness'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
Is this meant to be a refutation of the cited Neves et al.'s study?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

What is the Neves "school of thought" that is being challenged? I don't recall reading anywhere where Neves claimed that 'cranio-facial' pattern alone can prove 'genetic closeness'.

---

He did state that there was probably a closer affinity based on the faces to Australian indigenous people than modern Native Americans.
That is a craliometric conclusion. He may be right to some degree. What I am saying is some studies dispute that those similarities indicate as much as many people think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

Well, I don't know if he specifically stated it, bt the school of thought of forensic anthropologists usually goes in that direction. That is why I said school, and not of Neves himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:
According to Clyde if A Navajo Indian looks somewhat Japanese it must be Japanese. Affinity and all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:
According to Clyde if A Navajo Indian looks somewhat Japanese it must be Japanese. Affinity and all.

---

Are you saying the Japanese look like Navajo?

I never heard this before.

.

---

Native American Asian you get the picture.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Winters wrote: I am using the terminology of Neves. Neves calls these people African.

---

quote:

---

Neves actually says: While the latter resemble modern northeastern Asians, the former resembles Australo-Melanesians and Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
Is this meant to be a refutation of the cited Neves et al.'s study?

---

quote:

---

Neves, W. A. and M. Hubbe. 2005. "Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World," PNAS 102(51): 18309-18314.

p. 18313 "Two different hypotheses can be proposed to explain the morphological differences observed between early and late Native South Americans (27). One is a local microevolutionary process that transformed, in situ, the Paleoamerican morphology
into that prevailing today among Native Americans. The other is that the Americas were successively occupied by two morphologically differentiated human stocks, with the Paleoamerican morphology entering first.
We believe the second hypothesis is more plausible for three reasons: first, it would be very unlikely that the same evolutionary event (directional morphological change) happened in the Americas and in East Asia in parallel at approximately the same time (the parsimony principle) (28); second, because in South America, at least, the transition between the two morphological patterns was, as far as we know, abrupt (29); and third, cranial morphology has recently been shown to respond adaptatively only to extreme environmental conditions, being therefore much less plastic than originally thought (30). No transoceanic migration is necessary to explain our findings, because Paleoamericanlike humans were also present in East Asia during the final Pleistocene (31-35) and could perfectly well have entered the New World across the Bering Strait. A final solution to this dilemma will depend of course on a better understanding of what
was happening in North America at the same time."

---

quote:

---

Harvati, K. and T. D. Weaver. 2006. "Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures," The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 288A(12):1225-1233
email: Katerina Harvati (harvati@eva.mpg.de)

Abstract
Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations. Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction. Anat Rec Part A, 2006. © 2006

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
Is this meant to be a refutation of the cited Neves et al.'s study?

---

The point is that Neves himself points out that his data can be interpreted 2 ways.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

One links cranial shape to genetics argues that the shape of his skulls argues for two [populations coming to the new world Siberians and his Australian-looking ones, the second is that the shape difference between his skulls and modern Amerinds is due to climate. he opts for the first but our cited papers argue for the second.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

Neves, W. A. and M. Hubbe. 2005. "Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World," PNAS 102(51): 18309-18314.

p. 18313 "Two different hypotheses can be proposed to explain the morphological differences observed between early and late Native South Americans (27). One is a local microevolutionary process that transformed, in situ, the Paleoamerican morphology
into that prevailing today among Native Americans. The other is that the Americas were successively occupied by two morphologically differentiated human stocks, with the Paleoamerican morphology entering first.
We believe the second hypothesis is more plausible for three reasons: first, it would be very unlikely that the same evolutionary event (directional morphological change) happened in the Americas and in East Asia in parallel at approximately the same time (the parsimony principle) (28); second, because in South America, at least, the transition between the two morphological patterns was, as far as we know, abrupt (29); and third, cranial morphology has recently been shown to respond adaptatively only to extreme environmental conditions, being therefore much less plastic than originally thought (30). No transoceanic migration is necessary to explain our findings, because Paleoamericanlike humans were also present in East Asia during the final Pleistocene (31-35) and could perfectly well have entered the New World across the Bering Strait. A final solution to this dilemma will depend of course on a better understanding of what
was happening in North America at the same time."

---

While Neves supports the second hypothesis, this study supports the first.

quote:

---

Harvati, K. and T. D. Weaver. 2006. "Human cranial anatomy and the differential preservation of population history and climate signatures," The Anatomical Record Part A: Discoveries in Molecular, Cellular, and Evolutionary Biology 288A(12):1225-1233
email: Katerina Harvati (harvati@eva.mpg.de)

Abstract
Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations. Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction. Anat Rec Part A, 2006. © 2006

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
but go onto explain why they [Neves et al.] give preponderance to only one of the interpretion. Okay then.

---

quote:

---

Which "cited" paper agues for the so-called "second"? Have the points which compel Neves et al. to give preponderance to one of the interpretations been addressed point by point?

---

quote:

---

Mustafino, you are trying to compare apples with oranges. First of all, this last study doesn't specifically address Neves et al.'s aforementioned study. Secondly, you, yourself noted that Neves et al. have raised the issue of the set of possibilites in which their findings could be interpreted, but that they, as the authors of the study, give preponderance to one type of interpretation because of a set of given reasons laid out. Thirdly, Neves et al. aren't simply using cranio-morphological comparative analysis as the sole basis for the interpretation which was given preponderance; rather, they place it within the context of genetic studies that had been done prior to their findings. Fourthly, you haven't refuted Neves et al.'s finding; saying that they used cranio-morphology as the basis for making 'genealogical' links, in terms of waves of migration from southeast Asia, as opposed to placing their findings within the conclusions already reached by geneticists, is unfounded...pending objective corroboration from you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:


but go onto explain why they [Neves et al.] give preponderance to only one of the interpretion. Okay then.

---

I think he explains himself well.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

Which "cited" paper agues for the so-called "second"? Have the points which compel Neves et al. to give preponderance to one of the interpretations been addressed point by point?

---

The paper I posted. Read it. No it was not a direct address of neves paper, but of the methodology. Did Neves address their paper? The answer is no as well. If you want to compare and contrast, that is why both posts are there.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

Mustafino, you are trying to compare apples with oranges. First of all, this last study doesn't specifically address Neves et al.'s aforementioned study. Secondly, you, yourself noted that Neves et al. have raised the issue of the set of possibilites in which their findings could be interpreted, but that they, as the authors of the study, give preponderance to one type of interpretation because of a set of given reasons laid out. Thirdly, Neves et al. aren't simply using cranio-morphological comparative analysis as the sole basis for the interpretation which was given preponderance; rather, they place it within the context of genetic studies that had been done prior to their findings. Fourthly, you haven't refuted Neves et al.'s finding; saying that they used cranio-morphology as the basis for making 'genealogical' links, in terms of waves of migration from southeast Asia, as opposed to placing their findings within the conclusions already reached by geneticists, is unfounded...pending objective corroboration from you.

---

Wrong. I never intended to refute Neves, but to show his perspective is not the only one.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

The second article gives enough reasons why craniofacial affinities, according to them, do not give as much credence to genetic affinity as many think. Again, I am not saying Neves is wrong. I am saying his craniofacial evidence might not have as much weight as people think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

Supercar,

Neves did refer to the opposite view in the 2005 PNAS paper in question. In the passage cited he cites reference 27 for view #1. Here is the relevant paragraph:

Powell, J. F. and W.A. Neves. 1999. "Craniofacial Morphology of the First Americans: Pattern and Process in the Peopling of the New world," Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 42: 153-188.

p. 155. One potential drawback to analysis of craniofacial morphology used for the reconstruction of population relationships is that craniofacial form is partly affected by environmental constraints. Although direct evidence for the effects of selection on craniofacial shape have not been well proven (Relethford 19940, indirect evidence such as temporal and spatial trends in craniofacial dimensions have been documented (Boyd, 1988; Brown, 1987; Carlson and Van Gerven; Weidenreich, 1945), and are reviewed by Larsen (1997). Anthropometric assessments of craniofacial form in the Americas have shown a relationship between measures of facial height and climate, at least as reflected in the geographic positions of the populations examined (Jantz et al., 1992). Kean and Houghton (1990) observed that the distinct facial form of Polynesian populations reflects the development of the cranial base, the short load arm of the mandible and their subsequent effects on facial prognathism and positioning. Australian populations, which have shorter upper facial lengths and larger teeth, also exhibit pronounced midfacial prognathism and average cranial base flexure. Thus facial forwardness is, in part, a reflection of masticatory constraints of the load arm of the mandible and tooth size (Kean and Houghton, 1990). Differences in craniofacial form among temporal samples in a region have been interpreted as the result of changes in functional loading of the teeth and jaws (Boyd, 1988; Carlson and Van Gerven, 1977;Weidenreich, 1945) or even as a physiological response or adaptation to changes in temperature during the Holocene (Brown, 1987).

One does not need to refute the exact claims of one paper if one is arguing that the methodology is problematic.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

This is done all the time in science. That is what the 3 papers provided were on as well as all the ones Neves himself provided in 1999.

You are in error when you say Neves is using all kind of other things.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

Evidence that goes against his claims is that none of the mtdna and Y-chromosome we ever see in the New World shows migration from Australian, Polynesian genetic-like populations.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

This is also the case for paleoindian North American mtdna (I'm not sure if any of the South American paleoindians have been tested.). Do you have specific reference quotes for Neves' supposed data?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
and yet nothing you post about their conclusions reflect that you understand Neves et al.’s premises.

---

quote:

---

This is b.s. The paper doesn’t critique Neves et al.’s methodology, because it doesn’t address it; period. You yourself have failed to show that you’ve understood Neves et al. Simply put, Neves et al. utilize multivariate discriminant analysis, using modern and ancient crania. He then places his conclusions within the context of conclusions already derived from population genetics.

---

quote:

---

What is the alternative perspective, based on what set of parameters?

---

quote:

---

Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations. Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction. Anat Rec Part A, 2006. © 2006

---

quote:

---

You make these pointless claims, precisely because you either don’t like the conclusions reached by Neves et al., or because you don’t understand them; pure and simple. I believe it is a mix of both. For the nth time, Neves et al. never proclaimed to derive a ‘genetic’ conclusion from cranio-morphological analysis, but rather, took their findings, and placed it within the context of conclusions derived from population genetics about the waves of migration from southeast Asia to North America - comprendez?

---

quote:

---

There is a difference between the act of deriving ‘genetic conclusion’ from cranial analysis, and that of taking the findings of cranial analysis, correlating them with and putting them into the picture **already** painted by population genetics.

---

quote:

---

The question is: do you understand which of the two that Neves et al undertook?

---

quote:

---

The problem with you, is that you don't even understand what Neves et al. are saying, much less be able to determine what is supposedly problematic about their methodology.

---

quote:

---

The onus is on you to cite Neves et al. and point by point tell us what is supposedly wrong with their methodology. If you can reference studies that don't address Neves et al.'s work, but still insist that they presumably state what is "problematic" about Neves et al.'s work, then surely you should be able to demonstrate point by point what is wrong with Neves et al.'s methodology, and subsequent conclusions.

---

quote:

---

Melanesians and Australians carry paternal C lineages; do the Native Americans carry this as well?

---

quote:

---

My friend, you cannot simply assess the mtDNA of Paleo-Indians, because they dead; however, you can assess 'modern' populations to extrapolate on that, but the problem here is that, modern groups are the culmination of waves and waves of migration into the Americas, since the first Paleo-Americans set foot in that part of the world. This is reflected in their gene pools, which is a mosaic of African and Eurasian mtDNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:


and yet nothing you post about their conclusions reflect that you understand Neves et al.’s premises.

---

And this conclusion from your biased self is supposed to mean something?

---

quote:

---

Mustafino;

quote:

---

This is b.s. The paper doesn’t critique Neves et al.’s methodology, because it doesn’t address it; period. You yourself have failed to show that you’ve understood Neves et al. Simply put, Neves et al. utilize multivariate discriminant analysis, using modern and ancient crania. He then places his conclusions within the context of conclusions already derived from population genetics.

---

As usual, you are talking out your ass. Feel free to source the population genetics that he placed his conclusions in context of.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

The second article address craniometric conclusions directly. I give my sources, where are yours.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

What is the alternative perspective, based on what set of parameters?

---

Dude if you can’t read I can’t help you. It is quite clear in the abstract.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

Cranial morphology is widely used to reconstruct evolutionary relationships, but its reliability in reflecting phylogeny and population history has been questioned. Some cranial regions, particularly the face and neurocranium, are believed to be influenced by the environment and prone to convergence. Others, such as the temporal bone, are thought to reflect more accurately phylogenetic relationships. Direct testing of these hypotheses was not possible until the advent of large genetic data sets. The few relevant studies in human populations have had intriguing but possibly conflicting results, probably partly due to methodological differences and to the small numbers of populations used. Here we use three-dimensional (3D) geometric morphometrics methods to test explicitly the ability of cranial shape, size, and relative position/orientation of cranial regions to track population history and climate. Morphological distances among 13 recent human populations were calculated from four 3D landmark data sets, respectively reflecting facial, neurocranial, and temporal bone shape; shape and relative position; overall cranial shape; and centroid sizes. These distances were compared to neutral genetic and climatic distances among the same, or closely matched, populations.Results indicate that neurocranial and temporal bone shape track neutral genetic distances, while facial shape reflects climate; centroid size shows a weak association with climatic variables; and relative position/orientation of cranial regions does not appear correlated with any of these factors. Because different cranial regions preserve population history and climate signatures differentially, caution is suggested when using cranial anatomy for phylogenetic reconstruction. Anat Rec Part A, 2006. © 2006

---

quote:

---

You make these pointless claims, precisely because you either don’t like the conclusions reached by Neves et al., or because you don’t understand them; pure and simple. I believe it is a mix of both. For the nth time, Neves et al. never proclaimed to derive a ‘genetic’ conclusion from cranio-morphological analysis, but rather, took their findings, and placed it within the context of conclusions derived from population genetics about the waves of migration from southeast Asia to North America - comprendez?

---

Again, nice try at a strawman. I am still waiting for your studies in genetic populations you Neves supposedly places his craniometric studies in context with.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

There is a difference between the act of deriving ‘genetic conclusion’ from cranial analysis, and that of taking the findings of cranial analysis, correlating them with and putting them into the picture **already** painted by population genetics.

---

Again, sources.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

[The question is: do you understand which of the two that Neves et al undertook?

---

The question is if you do.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

[he problem with you, is that you don't even understand what Neves et al. are saying, much less be able to determine what is supposedly problematic about their methodology.

---

The problem is that you don’t have a clue what they are saying and give one liners without addressing the context of the articles with direct quotes.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

The onus is on you to cite Neves et al. and point by point tell us what is supposedly wrong with their methodology. If you can reference studies that don't address Neves et al.'s work, but still insist that they presumably state what is "problematic" about Neves et al.'s work, then surely you should be able to demonstrate point by point what is wrong with Neves et al.'s methodology, and subsequent conclusions.

---

Again nice try. I already stated that he was using craniometric phylogeny. The other article questions that usage.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

Furthermore, I just posted another article where Neves’ defends this methodology. I am not claiming either side is right, but I at least can understand there are two schools of thought.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

Melanesians and Australians carry paternal C lineages; do the Native Americans carry this as well?

---

Provide a source for your claim to see it in context. What paternal C lineages are you talking about?

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

My friend, you cannot simply assess the mtDNA of Paleo-Indians, because they dead; however, you can assess 'modern' populations to extrapolate on that, but the problem here is that, modern groups are the culmination of waves and waves of migration into the Americas, since the first Paleo-Americans set foot in that part of the world. This is reflected in their gene pools, which is a mosaic of African and Eurasian mtDNA.

---

Genetic markers can show when the admixture occurred to a degree, depending on when the mutation occurred. But that is irrelevant. You have claime that Neves has made his craniometric claims based on genetic studies. SO cite them.

---

You've already cited them on it; if you can't understand your own sources, then too bad, you have no business citing them in the first place.
 

---

Posted by Mustafino (Member # 12795) on :
 
I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos. I see you haven't addressed the fact that Neves supports craniometry as evidence of affinity, you haven't addressed that the other article does not. And you still haven't given sources for your claim that Neves used his craniometry in context with any genetic study.
 

---

Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

I see you haven't addressed the fact that Neves supports craniometry as evidence of affinity

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

, you haven't addressed that the other article does not.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

And you still haven't given sources for your claim that Neves used his craniometry in context with any genetic study.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

More empty rhetoric. Which is all you can give because:


I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos. I see you haven't addressed the fact that Neves supports craniometry as evidence of affinity, you haven't addressed that the other article does not. And you still haven't given sources for your claim that Neves used his craniometry in context with any genetic study.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

I see you haven't addressed the fact that Neves supports craniometry as evidence of affinity

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

, you haven't addressed that the other article does not.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

And you still haven't given sources for your claim that Neves used his craniometry in context with any genetic study.

---

quote:

---

I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I see you did not read Neves discussion with Armelagos

---

We see that SuperCar uses your citations to refute you, and you respond by trying to strike attitude to substitute for inability to address your own citations.
Towards a theory of modern human origins: geography, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution
“As presented in detail elsewhere (Neves et al., 2003) the arrival of an ''Australo-Melanesian-like'' population in the Americas is easily accommodated under what is presently known about the place of origin and the routes taken by modern humans in their first long-distance dispersions (Lahr and Foley, 1998).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustafino:

[quote]Williams et al. is cautioning against the idea that cranial affinity and variation can be utilized to place groups in to discrete entities, as in a racial sense [like the forensics do] which tends overlook variations within populations, and hence lead to grossly misleading conclusions. Neves et al. have already made it known that they don't use the multivariate discriminant analysis for such purposes, i.e. to use it within the 'racial' context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
[QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustafino:

[quote]Williams et al. is cautioning against the idea that cranial affinity and variation can be utilized to place groups in to discrete entities, as in a racial sense [like the forensics do] which tends overlook variations within populations, and hence lead to grossly misleading conclusions. Neves et al. have already made it known that they don't use the multivariate discriminant analysis for such purposes, i.e. to use it within the 'racial' context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mustafino:

[quote]Williams et al. is cautioning against the idea that cranial affinity and variation can be utilized to place groups in to discrete entities, as in a racial sense [like the forensics do] which tends overlook variations within populations, and hence lead to grossly misleading conclusions. Neves et al. have already made it known that they don't use the multivariate discriminant analysis for such purposes, i.e. to use it within the 'racial' context.

---

And they state that affinity can be for environmental causes and not just shared ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

Again. I was talking about the second study. And I stated Neves used craniometry to conclude within other Anthropological studies, NOT GENETIC studies, which you are referencing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

You wish. It specifically talks about an anthropological study. not a genetic study. Feel free to go look up the study.
here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

And that is Genetic how? You keep on showing your ignorance. You claimed he made claims within a genetic context. SO show it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

population genetics
What does that have to do with the Lahr and Foley study?

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

He did state he believed there was an affinity that was ancestral related with Australians or other Melanesians. But not because of a genetic study.

English is my second language. It must not be yours at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
You tell us, since you've apparently read the study, right? Well, where is it; share it with the rest of us, instead of running your mouth of like diarrhea.

---

quote:

---

Which would make me ahead of you then, considering I can actually read my own citations, which you've demonstrated that you are incapable of doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
You tell us, since you've apparently read the study, right? Well, where is it; share it with the rest of us, instead of running your mouth of like diarrhea.

---

Again here

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

Which would make me ahead of you then, considering I can actually read my own citations, which you've demonstrated that you are incapable of doing.

---

You have failed to prove these claims with direct quotes before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
^Lol. This here, is what you call "having read the study"?...

---

quote:

---

How does this abstract, apparently not the study itself, help you? I wonder how they would talk about lineages, without actually discussing 'genetics'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

Again. I was talking about the second study. And I stated Neves used craniometry to conclude within other Anthropological studies, NOT GENETIC studies, which you are referencing.

---

Your own citation has been shown to you, which specifically talks about the Paleo-American specimens studied, and you haven't been able to refute it. You have been caught lying with your pants down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
^Lol. This here, is what you call "having read the study"?...

---

If the abstract is not about genetics, why would I need to read the whole article?

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

How does this abstract, apparently not the study itself, help you? I wonder how they would talk about lineages, without actually discussing 'genetics'.

---

The same way genealogists, and anthropologists have discussed lineage for many years without doing genetic studies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

The point is that you made the calim that he had put it within the context of genetic population studies. And I know of no genetic study that links the two (paleoindians and their descendants and Australians) in any way that differs from other Asians. Maybe you know of one? After all, there have been craniometric studies that have shown equal affinity of those paleoindians with some modern amerind populations.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Supercar:
I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying? First you say, the Lahr and Foley study must be based on some prior genetic studies, even though you haven't actually read the study

---

quote:

---

Either way, you are wrong about Neves et al.'s claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

quote:

---

I don't have the foggiest idea of what you are saying? First you say, the Lahr and Foley study must be based on some prior genetic studies, even though you haven't actually read the study

---

I read the abstract. It was enough.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

"However, a better fossil sample, improved dates, and genetic data have introduced new perspectives"

Just means that in general scinece has improved the data. They do not mention specific genetic tests, nor do they use genetic methodology but evolutionary geography. So unless you actually pay and read the article, nothing ther says they are talking about any specific test that puts PaleoAmerindians and South Asians any closer to each other. In fact, the study is about neanderthals. Don't play naive.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

quote:

---

Either way, you are wrong about Neves et al.'s claims.

---

Feel free to quote what I supposedly claim and then rebutt it with some solid evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

And yet you claim to know there is a genetic study nvolved based on the same abstract. LMAO. The only one showing stupidity is you. You do realize what abstracts are for right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mustafino:

What a moron, I give him direct quotes and he still doesn't get it.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

I understood the abstract just fine. Sorry you can't grasp it. Sad.

---

quote:

---

Mustafino:

As you obviously don't have enough brains to add anything of substance, I'll let you have the last word. Two pages of junk, and I still made my point. Africans did not come over to start the Olmecs ala Clyde's theories. Now post away with your idiotic claims.

---