Stop lying, El Dorado means “The Golden”, literally in Spanish, not “the golden one”. stick to the theme of this article: Blacks and whites in ancient Mexico, not the search for El Dorado in South America and Florida.

Actually, the Aztecs did not enter the Valley of Anahuac until about 1300 ad nor was Nahuatl their native tongue. Previous to 1300 ad the Aztecs were living a transhuman existence in the deserts of north central Mexico. They are most likely cousins of the Huichol and related groups collectively referred to by the common Nahuatl term "Chichimeca" which loosely translated means sons of bitches and refers to their tendency to dress in dog skin. They adopted Nahuatl during their stint as mercenaries among the cities of the lake Texcoco. The fabled homeland of the Chichimeca was a pace called Aztlan which may or may not have really existed. From folk descriptions Aztlan would have appeared to have been somewhere between the Mississippi river and Florida and possibly as far north as Tennessee.

Well, Looks like Wailoo and Whittingham et al simply reference Moore 1929. Therefore, they are redundant to this discussion. Way to pad the old bibliography. As to Moore 1929, I have yet to find it online. Provide a link and I'll be happy to read it. What I have gleaned in my efforts suggests that the paper notes that a Mayan skull was found that showed bone pathology reminiscent of that found in SCD. Hardly "proof" that SCD was found in an ancient Mayan skull. BTW, you are aware that SCD is found in populations as well as Africans? Seems like it spontaneously developed in at least 4 separate regions of the planet.

It is painfully obvious that you have only a weak grasp of modern genomic techniques and results. Your scientific acumen seems to have ossified sometime in the late 90s. Yes, Genomic studies do indeed trump Morphometrics and, they always will. There are a multitude of factors which can and do influence the shape and size of the human skull. these influences can be genetic, dietary, environmental and even cultural. Often times, multiple factors come into play. These can influence bone robustisity, density and shape. The ONLY way to determine, without doubt, the affinities of a bone is through genomic analysis. Morphometric analysis is basically the equivalent of an educated guess and while it can augment genomic analysis, on it's own it's pretty useless unless there is no genetic material to analyze. Take, for example the titles of the articles you've posted above.3 of the 4 have the term Morphological "Affinities" in the title. Now, what is the scientific meaning of the term "Affinities"?

.a similarity of characteristics SUGGESTING a relationship, especially a RESEMBLANCE in structure between animals, plants, or languages.
synonyms: similarity, resemblance, likeness, kinship, relationship, association, link, analogy, similitude, correspondence.

Notice that NO WHERE does it say "denoting" or "demonstrating" a relationship?

Look at the synonyms. Most are analogous to "suggesting". Some are a bit stronger as with "kinship" and "relationship" but, these terms are more likely to appear in a linguistics paper than one discussing the ancient art of crainiometry and there's a VERY good reason for that. That reason dates back the the 18th and 19th century when scientists attempted to reify a hierarchical theory of race. Of curse, these "scientists"came up with a chart that placed western Europeans at the top and Africans at the bottom with the so called "mongoloid races", Semitic peoples and Eastern Europeans occupying various rungs on the ladder of progress all based upon...CRANIOMETRIC ANALYSIS". Confirmation bias allowed western Europeans to put their "finger on the scale" and, as Stephen Gould so eloquently put it "Mismeasure Man". The first round was all about Cranial Capacity", A bigger brain was OBVIOUSLY a better brain. Of course, it was soon discovered that researchers had been under loading African skulls all along which gave the impression of a smaller brain. Remeasuring soon proved that African skulls were just as capacious ad European ones. Next came skull shape. Long skulls were, it was said, less desirable than round ones as round ones OBVIOUSLY had a greater proportion of frontal lobe than long ones and as most Western Europeans had round skulls... But...OOPS! Seems it turned out that British Skulls tended to be long. No problem, just change the theory. long skulls were suddenly very vogue.In the end it turned out that the shape of the skull was simply TOO VARIABLE to be of any use in this matter. Seems there is so much overlap that all skull types are represented in all populations. Yes, there are a few hallmarks that can be useful in assigning a skull to a CONTEMPORARY population but over all, skull shape is a bust. Genetics on the other hand, pretty much work EVERY TIME. Genes are not subject to the same environmental influences that bones are and due to the rules of inheritance and known mutation rates, genes make a damn good map of the human diaspora. In other words, you can use genotypes to trace the migration of human groups in space AND time with a great level of accuracy. One that is simply not possible with Morphometrics.

The point is that the man being sacrficed was not covered with gold dust as you claim; and that he was not El Dorado, the ‘golden one’ as you also falsely claimed. This was made up by you to deny the presence of whites in ancient Mexico.

Um...Definition #1 is pretty much what I said and Definition #2 is a modern adaptation. What's your point? As I mentioned in another post, the search for El Dorado was the driving force behind much of the Spanish exploration of North, South and Central America. I would also add the point (again) that the "city of gold" is a bastardization of the cultural practice. Sees the story grew with the telling as these stories so often do. None of this changes the FACT that El Dorado translates as The Golden One and refers to a person rather than a city.

Well Clyde, I keep trying to varify your claims but mostly I get sent to articles written by...Clyde Winters! When I check your bibliography most of the articles are pretty hard to find. Most are VERY outdated and rely upon ancient methodologies. You claim to have proof for instance, to have "proof" of sickle cell trait in ancient Maya. However, the article only notes "similarities" between the bones of known sufferers of SCT and the skulls of Maya. This is NOT proof of Sickle Cell Trait in the Maya but rather, a similarity in bone structure. It's gonna take me a while to get through your alphabet soup but, I'm pretty sure I'll be finding the same results.

You cited an article written by Arnaiz-Villena in 2000, he has changed his view on the presence of Blacks in Mexico. He wrote:

 All of these data should not be disregarded, because all of them should help to account for the true peopling history and First Native Americans’ relatedness. In fact, the true scenario may altogether be different and more complicated than foreseen since there are archaeological indications that Caucasoids(48), African Blacks(49), and other populations(17,50) may have all been among the First Native Americans. Particularly, Negroids are reported in the First Spanish Chronicles, as seen by Spanish Conquerors in Meso-America, Caribbean and the north-western area of South America(49). In fact, many scholars are increasingly doubtful that fullblown Olmec, Toltec, Mayan and Peruvian cultures (otherwise similar to Egyptian culture in certain aspects) appeared without external contact(18,48,49,51). Moreover, the most ancient archaeological American sites are far from the postulated entrance door: the Bering strait (Monteverde, Chile; Peña Furada, Brazil)(51,52).

Arnaiz-Villena,A, Moscoso, J.,Serrano-Vela,I. (2006).The uniqueness of Amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas. http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf

4.

I think you should review the meaning of the term "proof". NONE of these article "prove" anything. They all make the same basic claim: these skeletons "look like" African skeletons. This claim is meaningless in the face of modern genomic studies which have proven conclusively that there is no African genetic component in ancient America. Period.Perhaps you should put aside your preconceived notions and read some studies from THIS century?