I'm personally in favour of the signpost theory. the pyramids being built by an older more advanced race of humans from before the flood 12500 years ago that build them in such a way as to say hello, we have an advanced knowledge of mathematics and astronomy as can be seen by the way the pyramids have been built. we have lined them up in such a way that they point to a spot on the other side of the Nile where the truth can be found. Unfortunately the temple that held the truth was taken over by Egyptian priests who withheld the truth in order to have power over the population in much the same way that the catholic church withholds the truth in order to control the population. Sadly the temple at some stage in history was destroyed by invading forces and very little of it is left now.
Sooo...I'm racist against myself? I do love it when someone loses an argument and resorts to an Ad Hominem attack. Had you read my replies carefully, you may have noted that I am a multiracial person with white, Native American AND African ancestry. You would also note that I said nothing would make me happier that an ancient African heritage for Native Americans. The problem here is not my "implicit racism" but rather, your confirmation bias. You are so invested in the idea of an African origin for Native Americans that you are welling to ignore a huge body of factual evidence that disproves your hypothesis. H have not ignored your archaeological or crainiometric evidence. Rather, I have dismissed it as it flies into the face of the well established genetic evidence. As I suggested earlier, you need to start broadening your horizons on this subject by reading different authors rather than selecting only those that reinforce your own preconceptions. Science starts with the facts and follows them where they lead. You choose to begin with a conclusion and cherry pick the data to back it up. Very Kent Hovend of you. And...just so you know, an Ad Honinem attack is generally a good sign that you've lost an argument.
Obviously totally false. Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. Duh.
We can easily debunk this with carbon dating. Look how well it helped us determine the age of the pyramids so accurately. Within 10000 years. Pretty good right?!
It's silly to suggest that history is not exactly what we've been told. Do you think you're smarter than science?! If so you probably even question the known fact that 10 million years ago whales just up and walked out of the ocean and turned into cows. Despite the reams of evidence we have like those three random bones that look both Whaley and cowey. Who are you to question such clear scientific certainty about everything ever?
Humans transformed from monkeys into farmers 40000 years ago in Africa. Any suggestion to the contrary makes you a Holocaust denier.
Wow! Fascinating article. In my view, the discovery of cocaine and tobacco in Egyptian mummies demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that ships were crossing the Atlantic long before Columbus, perhaps as far back as 2000 BCE. At this point, the question really should be who these people were.
The idea of implicit racism has nothing to do with boys playing it provides an explaination for why we feel the way we feel about varied subject; And how we view the role of people not belonging to our culture and ethnicity The idea that our cultural traditions influence how we percieve certain phenomena is not new to academia. The idea that none evidentiary factors influence how we view history is not new. Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, was one of the first researchers to note how the Western academia beginning in the 18th century began to rewrite history denying an African influence on ancient Greek civilization , and ancient history generally.
We assume that any article or book written by an establishment member of the academe is based on valid historical truths, erudite scholarship and impeccable research. Although insiders and outsiders alike, believe this to be true, sociological research indicates that there are unconscious cognitive structures within each individual that determines how they perceive "reality". These structures are called doxa.
Commenting on these schema Berlinerblau in Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals noted that "These types of theories share the assumption that human beings know things that they do not even know that they know; that they "possess" knowledge about the world which exists in some sort of cognitive substrate, beyond the realm of discourse" (p.106). Loïc Wacquant says that doxa is " a realm of implicit and unstated beliefs". Given the research suggesting that doxa exist, support the view that some researchers, like Willy, allow their hatred of multiculturalism and belief that Africans played no role in ancient history , define their discourse on teaching and writing about the anthropology and history of Black and African people. Moreover, it suggest that when topics such as Africans being in America before Columbus is attacked by some members of the academe and laymen , these attacks are accepted without any reservation or test of the validity of the claims.
This doxa was evident in Willy’s response to the present article and the comments herein. Willy has made numerous unsubstantiated claims , about the PaleoAmericans which I have falsified by presenting abundant evidence in support of my claims. Yet he continues to ignore this research, while not presenting any evidence supporting his views.
I have presented numerous citations of articles claiming the PaleoAmericans were not contemporary Indians, that have not been falsified by other researchers, yet, Willy continues to deny the reality of this research. Given the abundance of evidence proving the non mongoloid origin of the PaleoAmericans,Willy can only be rejecting this evidence as a result of doxa and implicit racism , because this rejection of the evidence by Willy is not based on data, because non exist. Willey’s comments therefore must be unconscious biases because he has given no evidence that Neves’, Powell and etc., research has been falsified. Absence of evidence supporting his view, makes it clear Willy is making judgments about PaleoAmericans based on his own bias about Black people.
Yes it does matter who picks their nose first. Professors Dr. Friedrich and Dr. Scott Nappe , says picking your nose and eating it is healthy for two reasons: 1) it keeps your nose far cleaner and 2) it may boost the immune system.
So granted as you noted: “There is enough evidence out there floating around to show that in many cases the 'science' is used for ulterior motives other then having the truth be known ? So what is the causal reader really going to believe ?”. The answer is simple weight the evidence a researcher provides to support his/her claims.
I am a falsificationist . As a result, I believe a statement or hypothesis is nullified and "shown to be false" through the presentation of abundance of evidence supporting or falsifying a claim.
The causal reader must evaluate the evidence presented during a debate. In this debate I have cited numerous references supporting my claim. Willy has presented no evidence. Given the weight of the evidence a causal reader should accept the proposition supported by the most evidence.
I sort of agree, Axel, as it pertains to contemporary Egypt, but it’s so difficult to look past present day sociopolitical landscapes. Whoever the ancient “Egyptians” were, they accomplished unbelievable strides in just about every field. In their time, they, Sumeria, cultural centers in India, Asia, and South America gave us technologies that we’re just beginning to realize. It’s just that those technologies are so different than our present ones that they are difficult to even recognize them. Ancient Egypt, and those who peopled the country, were far from failures. It’s a mystery to me why people like Hawass would continually shoot themselves in the foot to protect orthodox archaeology. They have so much to gain, and so little to lose! I would gladly give them their “greatness” in exchange for the knowledge – a small price to pay! Ancient history – REAL ancient history - is so much bigger and more awe-inspiring than we are led to believe!
The moment you brought in the charge or racism it became boys playing. You have your opinions based on what you have chosen to believe in . He has his opinion based on what he has chosen to believe in. "banging your head (s) on some mad buggers wall " gives you nothing but a headache. How are we/you going to define what is a causal reader? There is enough evidence out there floating around to show that in many cases the 'science' is used for ulterior motives other then having the truth be known ? So what is the causal reader really going to believe ?
Anything is possible is it no?
Does it really matter in the grand pattern who was the first to pick their nose
This discussion is not about “two young boys playing in the sand box betting on who can pee the furthest”, it is about confronting outright lies about prehistory, promoted as normal anthropological and prehistorical research. There is nothing wrong with making hypothesis about prehistorical events, because there are different ways to interpret the evidence. The problem with Willy’s comments are that he is stating his personal opinions, as if these concoctions represent the views of prehistorians without citing any sources to support his propositions.My comments present actual evidence supporting this article, and falsifying his fabrications about prehistory.If the concoctions of Willy are not challenged the casual reader will believe he is right.
Mark, I taught at our local college last night and I included much from your article in parts of my presentation. If it had not been for your article, I would not have known about the Lindsrom thesis , which I accessed and sent to the primary history instructor. I included her work with some of my primary research to form a more comprehensive hypothesis of the origin of some prominent ancient Celtic practices and beliefs.
Crainometric analysis to determine the racial affinities of ancient populations has always been useful in anthropology. No professional archaeologist has challenged the identification of the PaleoAmericans and contemporary mongoloid, as two different populations. This indicates that YOU CAN RELY UPON SKULL SHAPE TO DETERMINE RACIAL AFFINITIES.
Willy you should stop making up “stuff”. Cite one research paper where the authors claim “Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians are descended from a second (northern) migration from Africa to central Asia (the "Stan" Republics of southern Russia) about 60,000 years ago”. This is a complete lie because most researchers cite the date of 60kya, as the date for the first out of Africa (OoA) event. Explain , how anatomically modern humans (amh) were expanding from Africa, and Central Asia at the same time.
Another lie you made up in your post above is the following ” Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians are descended from a second (northern) migration from Africa to central Asia (the "Stan" Republics of southern Russia) about 60,000 years ago. They seem to have stopped for a while in the Levant where they hybridized with progressive Neanderthals before continuing northward. In the Kazakhstan region they split. Ancestral Europeans went west, Ancestral Asians/Native Americans went east. Between the Northern and Southern migrations were the Himalaya mountains so, there was little mixture between the two until post glacial migrations. This is well established FACT. “ First of all, this statement is false, it is an invention of your own imagination , because, there was no amh population in the Levant that “hybridized with progressive Neanderthals “, this is a pure lie—NOT A FACT.
The research indicates that the anatomically modern human (amh) population in the Levant at this time was Sub-Saharan African, not a AMH-Neanderthal hybridized group. Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa , "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Lavant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP).
Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no AMH-Neanderthal hybridized population in the Middle East between 20,000-4,000BP.
Below are a few quotes from the paper by Holliday they show that the population at this time were Negroid in Southwest Asia not an AMH-Neanderthal hybridized population .
"In this light, some of the more robust assignments (albeit not 95% of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids to the sub-Saharan African sample (e.g., Qafzeh 8 at 85%, Skhul 4 at 71%) are remarkable indeed" (p. 62).
"The Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have sometimes been refered to as "Proto-CroMagnons" (e.g., Howell 1957; Vandermeersch 1996) because of their presumed similarity to the famous Aurignacian-associated hominids from Western Europe....Specifically [Brace], he notes that "in both the details of its dental and craniological size and from Qafzeh is an unlikely proto-Cro-Magnon, but it makes a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans"(p.63).
"[T]aken as a whole, the work of Tchernov seems to support the findings of the current research that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have their origins in Africa, while the Neanderthals are from cold to temperate biomes"(p.64).
"The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64).
See these quotes in Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
In conclusion, Willy you are propagating fabrications about the origin of East Asians, Europeans and Native Americans, and the Out of Africa event. Craniofacial evidence can identify ancient populations, and your claims about Native Americans originating from a mythical Central Asian AMH-Neanderthal hybridized population lacks any foundation. Stop making up falsehoods, in an attempt to make yourself right.
Clyde and Willy. Sure has been entertaining. Either way, what it does remind me of though is two young boys playing in the sand box betting on who can pee the furthest
I don’t know if Willy is a troll. I think his views reflect implicit racism.Implicit racism, broadly defined, refers to an individual's utilization of unconscious biases when making judgments about people from different racial and ethnic groups. According to a number of observers, implicit racism is an automatic negative reaction to someone of a different race or ethnicity than one's own. Willy has ignored all the archaeological, crainiometric evidence discussed in this comments section ,simply because he can not believe Africans could have sailed to America, because He personally feels Africans lack this ability due to the implicit racism He is directing at Black and African people.
I'm not a troll though it might seem that way to the uninformed. My arguments are based in solid fact.Not pseudoscience. Crainometric analysis to determine the racial affinities of ancient populations is about as useful as Phrenology in the age of genetics. In other words...useless.
Apples to oranges my friend. The reason we use forensic morphometrics to ID murder victims is simply because we have a "snapshot" of the various races as they exist at this particular time, In 10,000 years those physical models will probably not hold up. That's how fast the shape of the human skull changes. Heck, something as simple as a childhood change in diet can influence the final shape of the adult skull and give an appearance different from the parent's. This is why 19th and early 20th century anthropomatrists abandoned their brachiocephaly vs dolichocephaly theories. YOU CAN NOT RELY UPON SKULL SHAPE TO DETERMINE RACIAL AFFINITIES over long periods of time. Only genetic studies are able to determine this. Genetics have quite clearly demonstrated that ALL Native Americans are descended from a single ancestral population. They have also demonstrated that Africans, Pacific Islanders and Melanesians ARE NOT directly ancestral to Native Americans. Both Africans and Native Americans belong to unique Mitochondrial haplogroups that are only distantly related. These haplogroups have been used to track human migrations both spatially and temporally. It is VERY CLEAR that Ancestral Africans for the most part remained in Africa while ancestral Melanesians/Australians are descended from the first (southern) migration out of Africa (70,000 to 50,000 years bp). Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians are descended from a second (northern) migration from Africa to central Asia (the "Stan" Republics of southern Russia) about 60,000 years ago. They seem to have stopped for a while in the Levant where they hybridized with progressive Neanderthals before continuing northward. In the Kazakhstan region they split. Ancestral Europeans went west, Ancestral Asians/Native Americans went east.Between the Northern and Southern migrations were the Himalaya mountains so, there was little mixture between the two until post glacial migrations. This is well established FACT. There is simply no direct ancestral genetic connection between Africans, Pacific Islanders (except in western So America) and Melanesia. Native Americans ARE NOT directly related to any of those groups. Period. Because they look alike means NOTHING. As to the Bocotudo being of Polynesian descent...So? 1) As noted, the western So America has a strong Polynesian component due to admixture with Rapa Nui (Easter Islanders). 2) There is also the matter of "Balckbirding". A horrific 18th century practice in which entire Pacific Island populations were kidnapped by Spanish and Portuguese slavers and sold off in So America and the Caribbean islands. So, it's not surprising to find Melanesian genetics in that area. BTW, "pre 19th century" is not "Ancient". When a paper makes statements as dubious as that you know there's something hinky going on. One last point. I can't help but notice that the papers you cite are always written by the same authors. Relying upon dubious claims made by a small group of authors with a personal stake in their results is not the best practice. Might I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit and look at other sources?
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
I'm personally in favour of the signpost theory. the pyramids being built by an older more advanced race of humans from before the flood 12500 years ago that build them in such a way as to say hello, we have an advanced knowledge of mathematics and astronomy as can be seen by the way the pyramids have been built. we have lined them up in such a way that they point to a spot on the other side of the Nile where the truth can be found. Unfortunately the temple that held the truth was taken over by Egyptian priests who withheld the truth in order to have power over the population in much the same way that the catholic church withholds the truth in order to control the population. Sadly the temple at some stage in history was destroyed by invading forces and very little of it is left now.
I totally agree. I think Dr Hawass is a close minded, bigoted fool and we will never learn the truth while he is the head of Egyptian studies.
OK, Daddy
Actually Gord, we're having an adult discussion. You should try it sometime.
Sooo...I'm racist against myself? I do love it when someone loses an argument and resorts to an Ad Hominem attack. Had you read my replies carefully, you may have noted that I am a multiracial person with white, Native American AND African ancestry. You would also note that I said nothing would make me happier that an ancient African heritage for Native Americans. The problem here is not my "implicit racism" but rather, your confirmation bias. You are so invested in the idea of an African origin for Native Americans that you are welling to ignore a huge body of factual evidence that disproves your hypothesis. H have not ignored your archaeological or crainiometric evidence. Rather, I have dismissed it as it flies into the face of the well established genetic evidence. As I suggested earlier, you need to start broadening your horizons on this subject by reading different authors rather than selecting only those that reinforce your own preconceptions. Science starts with the facts and follows them where they lead. You choose to begin with a conclusion and cherry pick the data to back it up. Very Kent Hovend of you. And...just so you know, an Ad Honinem attack is generally a good sign that you've lost an argument.
Obviously totally false. Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. Duh.
We can easily debunk this with carbon dating. Look how well it helped us determine the age of the pyramids so accurately. Within 10000 years. Pretty good right?!
It's silly to suggest that history is not exactly what we've been told. Do you think you're smarter than science?! If so you probably even question the known fact that 10 million years ago whales just up and walked out of the ocean and turned into cows. Despite the reams of evidence we have like those three random bones that look both Whaley and cowey. Who are you to question such clear scientific certainty about everything ever?
Humans transformed from monkeys into farmers 40000 years ago in Africa. Any suggestion to the contrary makes you a Holocaust denier.
Business as usual. Scythians defacing superior art and replacing it with childlike junk and calling it "art."
This pattern has continued to the present day. Nothing much ever changes on this planet.
Wow! Fascinating article. In my view, the discovery of cocaine and tobacco in Egyptian mummies demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that ships were crossing the Atlantic long before Columbus, perhaps as far back as 2000 BCE. At this point, the question really should be who these people were.
It's Imhotep. (The Mummy--1932)
The idea of implicit racism has nothing to do with boys playing it provides an explaination for why we feel the way we feel about varied subject; And how we view the role of people not belonging to our culture and ethnicity The idea that our cultural traditions influence how we percieve certain phenomena is not new to academia. The idea that none evidentiary factors influence how we view history is not new. Martin Bernal in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, was one of the first researchers to note how the Western academia beginning in the 18th century began to rewrite history denying an African influence on ancient Greek civilization , and ancient history generally.
We assume that any article or book written by an establishment member of the academe is based on valid historical truths, erudite scholarship and impeccable research. Although insiders and outsiders alike, believe this to be true, sociological research indicates that there are unconscious cognitive structures within each individual that determines how they perceive "reality". These structures are called doxa.
Commenting on these schema Berlinerblau in Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals noted that "These types of theories share the assumption that human beings know things that they do not even know that they know; that they "possess" knowledge about the world which exists in some sort of cognitive substrate, beyond the realm of discourse" (p.106). Loïc Wacquant says that doxa is " a realm of implicit and unstated beliefs". Given the research suggesting that doxa exist, support the view that some researchers, like Willy, allow their hatred of multiculturalism and belief that Africans played no role in ancient history , define their discourse on teaching and writing about the anthropology and history of Black and African people. Moreover, it suggest that when topics such as Africans being in America before Columbus is attacked by some members of the academe and laymen , these attacks are accepted without any reservation or test of the validity of the claims.
This doxa was evident in Willy’s response to the present article and the comments herein. Willy has made numerous unsubstantiated claims , about the PaleoAmericans which I have falsified by presenting abundant evidence in support of my claims. Yet he continues to ignore this research, while not presenting any evidence supporting his views.
I have presented numerous citations of articles claiming the PaleoAmericans were not contemporary Indians, that have not been falsified by other researchers, yet, Willy continues to deny the reality of this research. Given the abundance of evidence proving the non mongoloid origin of the PaleoAmericans,Willy can only be rejecting this evidence as a result of doxa and implicit racism , because this rejection of the evidence by Willy is not based on data, because non exist. Willey’s comments therefore must be unconscious biases because he has given no evidence that Neves’, Powell and etc., research has been falsified. Absence of evidence supporting his view, makes it clear Willy is making judgments about PaleoAmericans based on his own bias about Black people.
Yes it does matter who picks their nose first. Professors Dr. Friedrich and Dr. Scott Nappe , says picking your nose and eating it is healthy for two reasons: 1) it keeps your nose far cleaner and 2) it may boost the immune system.
So granted as you noted: “There is enough evidence out there floating around to show that in many cases the 'science' is used for ulterior motives other then having the truth be known ? So what is the causal reader really going to believe ?”. The answer is simple weight the evidence a researcher provides to support his/her claims.
I am a falsificationist . As a result, I believe a statement or hypothesis is nullified and "shown to be false" through the presentation of abundance of evidence supporting or falsifying a claim.
The causal reader must evaluate the evidence presented during a debate. In this debate I have cited numerous references supporting my claim. Willy has presented no evidence. Given the weight of the evidence a causal reader should accept the proposition supported by the most evidence.
I sort of agree, Axel, as it pertains to contemporary Egypt, but it’s so difficult to look past present day sociopolitical landscapes. Whoever the ancient “Egyptians” were, they accomplished unbelievable strides in just about every field. In their time, they, Sumeria, cultural centers in India, Asia, and South America gave us technologies that we’re just beginning to realize. It’s just that those technologies are so different than our present ones that they are difficult to even recognize them. Ancient Egypt, and those who peopled the country, were far from failures. It’s a mystery to me why people like Hawass would continually shoot themselves in the foot to protect orthodox archaeology. They have so much to gain, and so little to lose! I would gladly give them their “greatness” in exchange for the knowledge – a small price to pay! Ancient history – REAL ancient history - is so much bigger and more awe-inspiring than we are led to believe!
The moment you brought in the charge or racism it became boys playing. You have your opinions based on what you have chosen to believe in . He has his opinion based on what he has chosen to believe in. "banging your head (s) on some mad buggers wall " gives you nothing but a headache. How are we/you going to define what is a causal reader? There is enough evidence out there floating around to show that in many cases the 'science' is used for ulterior motives other then having the truth be known ? So what is the causal reader really going to believe ?
Anything is possible is it no?
Does it really matter in the grand pattern who was the first to pick their nose
This discussion is not about “two young boys playing in the sand box betting on who can pee the furthest”, it is about confronting outright lies about prehistory, promoted as normal anthropological and prehistorical research. There is nothing wrong with making hypothesis about prehistorical events, because there are different ways to interpret the evidence. The problem with Willy’s comments are that he is stating his personal opinions, as if these concoctions represent the views of prehistorians without citing any sources to support his propositions.My comments present actual evidence supporting this article, and falsifying his fabrications about prehistory.If the concoctions of Willy are not challenged the casual reader will believe he is right.
Mark, I taught at our local college last night and I included much from your article in parts of my presentation. If it had not been for your article, I would not have known about the Lindsrom thesis , which I accessed and sent to the primary history instructor. I included her work with some of my primary research to form a more comprehensive hypothesis of the origin of some prominent ancient Celtic practices and beliefs.
Crainometric analysis to determine the racial affinities of ancient populations has always been useful in anthropology. No professional archaeologist has challenged the identification of the PaleoAmericans and contemporary mongoloid, as two different populations. This indicates that YOU CAN RELY UPON SKULL SHAPE TO DETERMINE RACIAL AFFINITIES.
Willy you should stop making up “stuff”. Cite one research paper where the authors claim “Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians are descended from a second (northern) migration from Africa to central Asia (the "Stan" Republics of southern Russia) about 60,000 years ago”. This is a complete lie because most researchers cite the date of 60kya, as the date for the first out of Africa (OoA) event. Explain , how anatomically modern humans (amh) were expanding from Africa, and Central Asia at the same time.
Another lie you made up in your post above is the following ” Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians are descended from a second (northern) migration from Africa to central Asia (the "Stan" Republics of southern Russia) about 60,000 years ago. They seem to have stopped for a while in the Levant where they hybridized with progressive Neanderthals before continuing northward. In the Kazakhstan region they split. Ancestral Europeans went west, Ancestral Asians/Native Americans went east. Between the Northern and Southern migrations were the Himalaya mountains so, there was little mixture between the two until post glacial migrations. This is well established FACT. “ First of all, this statement is false, it is an invention of your own imagination , because, there was no amh population in the Levant that “hybridized with progressive Neanderthals “, this is a pure lie—NOT A FACT.
The research indicates that the anatomically modern human (amh) population in the Levant at this time was Sub-Saharan African, not a AMH-Neanderthal hybridized group. Trenton W. Holliday,in "Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) [2000], tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa , "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Lavant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This researcher found that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the Natufians samples (4000 BP).
Holliday confirmed his hypothesis that the replacement of the Neanderthal people were Sub-Saharan Africans. This shows that there were no AMH-Neanderthal hybridized population in the Middle East between 20,000-4,000BP.
Below are a few quotes from the paper by Holliday they show that the population at this time were Negroid in Southwest Asia not an AMH-Neanderthal hybridized population .
"In this light, some of the more robust assignments (albeit not 95% of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids to the sub-Saharan African sample (e.g., Qafzeh 8 at 85%, Skhul 4 at 71%) are remarkable indeed" (p. 62).
"The Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have sometimes been refered to as "Proto-CroMagnons" (e.g., Howell 1957; Vandermeersch 1996) because of their presumed similarity to the famous Aurignacian-associated hominids from Western Europe....Specifically [Brace], he notes that "in both the details of its dental and craniological size and from Qafzeh is an unlikely proto-Cro-Magnon, but it makes a fine model for the ancestors of modern sub-Saharan Africans"(p.63).
"[T]aken as a whole, the work of Tchernov seems to support the findings of the current research that the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids have their origins in Africa, while the Neanderthals are from cold to temperate biomes"(p.64).
"The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64).
See these quotes in Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
In conclusion, Willy you are propagating fabrications about the origin of East Asians, Europeans and Native Americans, and the Out of Africa event. Craniofacial evidence can identify ancient populations, and your claims about Native Americans originating from a mythical Central Asian AMH-Neanderthal hybridized population lacks any foundation. Stop making up falsehoods, in an attempt to make yourself right.
Clyde and Willy. Sure has been entertaining. Either way, what it does remind me of though is two young boys playing in the sand box betting on who can pee the furthest
I don’t know if Willy is a troll. I think his views reflect implicit racism.Implicit racism, broadly defined, refers to an individual's utilization of unconscious biases when making judgments about people from different racial and ethnic groups. According to a number of observers, implicit racism is an automatic negative reaction to someone of a different race or ethnicity than one's own. Willy has ignored all the archaeological, crainiometric evidence discussed in this comments section ,simply because he can not believe Africans could have sailed to America, because He personally feels Africans lack this ability due to the implicit racism He is directing at Black and African people.
I'm not a troll though it might seem that way to the uninformed. My arguments are based in solid fact.Not pseudoscience. Crainometric analysis to determine the racial affinities of ancient populations is about as useful as Phrenology in the age of genetics. In other words...useless.
Apples to oranges my friend. The reason we use forensic morphometrics to ID murder victims is simply because we have a "snapshot" of the various races as they exist at this particular time, In 10,000 years those physical models will probably not hold up. That's how fast the shape of the human skull changes. Heck, something as simple as a childhood change in diet can influence the final shape of the adult skull and give an appearance different from the parent's. This is why 19th and early 20th century anthropomatrists abandoned their brachiocephaly vs dolichocephaly theories. YOU CAN NOT RELY UPON SKULL SHAPE TO DETERMINE RACIAL AFFINITIES over long periods of time. Only genetic studies are able to determine this. Genetics have quite clearly demonstrated that ALL Native Americans are descended from a single ancestral population. They have also demonstrated that Africans, Pacific Islanders and Melanesians ARE NOT directly ancestral to Native Americans. Both Africans and Native Americans belong to unique Mitochondrial haplogroups that are only distantly related. These haplogroups have been used to track human migrations both spatially and temporally. It is VERY CLEAR that Ancestral Africans for the most part remained in Africa while ancestral Melanesians/Australians are descended from the first (southern) migration out of Africa (70,000 to 50,000 years bp). Native Americans, Europeans and East Asians are descended from a second (northern) migration from Africa to central Asia (the "Stan" Republics of southern Russia) about 60,000 years ago. They seem to have stopped for a while in the Levant where they hybridized with progressive Neanderthals before continuing northward. In the Kazakhstan region they split. Ancestral Europeans went west, Ancestral Asians/Native Americans went east.Between the Northern and Southern migrations were the Himalaya mountains so, there was little mixture between the two until post glacial migrations. This is well established FACT. There is simply no direct ancestral genetic connection between Africans, Pacific Islanders (except in western So America) and Melanesia. Native Americans ARE NOT directly related to any of those groups. Period. Because they look alike means NOTHING. As to the Bocotudo being of Polynesian descent...So? 1) As noted, the western So America has a strong Polynesian component due to admixture with Rapa Nui (Easter Islanders). 2) There is also the matter of "Balckbirding". A horrific 18th century practice in which entire Pacific Island populations were kidnapped by Spanish and Portuguese slavers and sold off in So America and the Caribbean islands. So, it's not surprising to find Melanesian genetics in that area. BTW, "pre 19th century" is not "Ancient". When a paper makes statements as dubious as that you know there's something hinky going on. One last point. I can't help but notice that the papers you cite are always written by the same authors. Relying upon dubious claims made by a small group of authors with a personal stake in their results is not the best practice. Might I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit and look at other sources?
Hawass makes me sick.
Pages