There are many people who believe that as Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew according to Jewish law and customs that he was indeed married and indeed had children. Quite frankly there is no reason to believe he did not do these things since there was no reason he could not be husband, father and teacher. P.S. Ignore the Mohammedan.
Your claim that Sub-Saharan Africans today are negroes but, in the past they were not is pure fiction. Everyone knows that the definition of negro, is a member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara. As a result when T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al, authors of the Manot article claim the skeletons from the Levant, were Sub-Saharan African, they are naming these anatomically modern humans: negroes like the population living in Sub-Saharan Africa today. Yet you say the people labeled as Sub-Saharan Africans in the Levant 55,000-4000 BC were not negroes, this is double speech on your part.
You dispute Dr Nieda Guidon’s research but you have not cited any evidence that invalidates her research. Her work on anatomically modern humans in Brazil has been published in peer reviewed journals , so when she claims Africans were in the Americas 65-100,000 years ago she is basing her claim on archaeological evidence not conjecture. You may disagree, but stop trying to make up stuff to make yourself right, when you are wrong.
Stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
She most certainly is infamous though I think you exaggerate her "evidence" to a whole new level.
From her wiki page:
"Niède Guidon's most famous prehistoric site is the Toca do Boqueira de Pedra Furada ("Pedra Furada Site"), which is located in vicinity of São Raimundo Nonato in the Serra de Capivara region in Brazil. She came across a structure resembling a bonfire equipped with arranged logs and stones that SHE BELIEVES date back to 48,700 years ago. She has SUGGESTED that humans reached Brazil about 100,000 years ago, PROBABLY from Africa by boat.[3]
Not all researchers agree with her conclusions on this evidence, but there is undisputed lithic and paleobotanical evidence for a Paleoamerican occupation dating back to c. 10,000 years. Pedra Furada is a rock shelter 55 feet (17 m) deep; its walls are painted with more than 1,150 pre-historic images. Here she has found thousands of artifacts that possibly suggest human handiwork. The plant and animal remains recovered from the c. 10,000-year-old levels of this site and from comparable levels of another rockshelter in the Serra, the Perna site, show that the area was more humid and more forested than today."
In actuality, the oldest confirmed artifacts at Pedra Frauda, the rock paintings, have been indirectly dated to 10,500 bp. She claims that a rock fragment with red lines on it (not typical of the other works in the cave) is an artifact dating to 29,860 years bp however, most archaeologists believe it to be a naturally occurring rock or geofact and not of human making. Her "proof" for the presence of AMH in the Americas before this is a dubious pile of rocks and charcoal dated to 32,000 years bp. I have yet to see and actual finds with a date any earlier than this. Certainly, she has no artifacts or remains dated to between 80 and 100,000 years bp to support her hypothesis that Africans settled the Americas 100,000 years ago. As I stated in my last reply, there is no RELIABLE material dated before 18,000 bp showing any human presence in the Americas. Nor does Dr. Guidon have any. I don't know how acknowledging this fact makes a fool of me.
"I have already shown that your proposed AMH-Neanderthal hybrid ancestor for Native Americans, that you claimed formerly lived in Central Asia, is a figment of your imagination."
I don't know why you continue to insist this is the case. I have given you ample proof that all non African humane are the result of human Neanderthal mating but, here's one more for you:
"Your claim that Sub-Saharan Africans are not negroes is pure fiction. Everyone knows that the definition of negro, is a member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara."
I concur with this definition wholeheartedly. However, "originally native to Africa south of the Sahara" does not include Pacific Islanders, Native Australians, Melanesians or Native Americans. It only refers to African Blacks as historically known and is not valid as a description of those other peoples.
This might help"
"Around 1442, the Portuguese first arrived in Southern Africa while trying to find a sea route to India.[citation needed] The term negro, literally meaning 'black', was used by the Spanish and Portuguese as a simple description to refer to the Bantu peoples that they encountered. Negro denotes "black" in Spanish and Portuguese, derived from the Latin word niger, meaning black, which itself is probably from a Proto-Indo-European root *nekw-, "to be dark", akin to *nokw-, night.[1][2] "Negro" was also used of the peoples of West Africa in old maps labelled Negroland, an area stretching along the Niger River.
From the 18th century to the late 1960s, negro (later capitalized) was considered to be the proper English-language term for people of black African origin. According to Oxford Dictionaries, use of the word "now seems out of date or even offensive in both British and US English".[3]
A specifically female form of the word, negress (sometimes capitalized), was occasionally used. However, like Jewess, it has all but completely fallen from use.
Negroid has traditionally been used within physical anthropology to denote one of the three purported races of humankind, alongside Caucasoid and Mongoloid. The suffix -oid means "similar to". "Negroid" as a noun was used to designate a wider or more generalized category than Negro; as an adjective, it qualified a noun as in, for example, "negroid features".[4]"
"As a result when T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al, authors of the Manot article claim the skeletons from the Levant, were Sub-Saharan African, they are naming these anatomically modern humans: negroes. Yet you say the people labeled as Sub-Saharan Africans in the Levant 55,000-4000 BC were not negroes, this is double speech on your part."
Boy oh boy does your reading comprehension suck. That make no such claim. What they said is that the calvarium is consistent with contemporary people of Africa AND the earliest Europeans. No where did they say the Manot people were "Negros". There is absolutely no way to make that claim as 1) Negros in the sense the word is used today did not exist 55,000 years age and 2) even if they had been around the skull is missing its entire facial region and therefore cannot be assigned to ant racial group past or present. All that can be said is it's Modern, it's from the Levant and it's 55,000 years old. Any claims beyond that are just so much wishful thinking on your part. Additionally, I never said people "between 55,000 and 4,000 years ago" were not Negros. What I said is that 55,000 years ago "Negros" in the modern, racial sense of the word did not yet exist. Neither did Caucasians or Asians for that matter. Human races had yet to differentiate. ALL humans at that time had dark skin, eyes and hair. Europeans would not evolve light skin, hair and eyes for at least another 45,000 years!
"Only an ignoramus would say that “crainiometrics are useless when attempting to assign ancient skulls to modern human races”; when researchers like T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al , identified the skulls of people living in the Levant 55-4kya : Sub-Saharan Africans, the name given to modern negroes in Africa."
There's that Ad Hominem attack again. It only makes you look foolish when you do that. Oh, and this statement is pure poppycock on top of that. The reasons were already given several times. No need to repeat them...again.
And yes, "Sub-Saharan Africans, the name given to MODERN negroes in Africa."
Exactly. It is the term used to describe Negros living south of the Sahara TODAY. In ancient times Sub Saharan Africans refers to the basal stock from which ALL modern humans would later be derived. No "Negros" existed at that time.
"Your other comments are also ludicrous. Stop trying to compare the work of Dr Nieda Guidon and Erik von Danikin. Dr. Guidon is a well respected archaeologist. Her work on anatomically modern humans in Brazil has been published in peer reviewed journals , so when she claims Africans were in the Americas 65-100,000 years ago she is basing her claim on archaeological evidence not conjecture. You may disagree, but stop trying to make up stuff to make yourself right, when you are wrong."
While the above statement is mostly true being a respected scientist is no guarantee against making a fool of oneself. The illustrious Dr Louis Leakey famously made a laughing stock of himself by claiming that naturally created geofacts were 250,000 year old artifacts at Calico Mines California. We all make mistakes. It's also good to remember that Dr Guidon's Hypotheses are not based upon solid data. The majority of those who have reviewed her work feel that her cultural remains are in fact geofacts and her dates are in very shaky ground. Bearing this in mind remember, she is SUGGESTING this to be the case. She herself is not asserting that her hypothesis correct. You are turning her conjecture into "fact". It is you who is in fact trying to "make yourself right" by asserting "facts" that are not in evidence.
"Finally, I don’t understand why you are discussing the Taungs child and "Miss Ples" these hominins are Australopithecus africanus who lived millions of years ago—not anatomically modern humans."
I was simply using the Eoanthropus hoax and the resulting derailing of legitimate research (Taungs, Miss Ples) as a correlating cautionary tale against hubris in science. A demonstration of how a wild goose chase after what we expect to see can hold back scientific progress by diverting attention and funding away from real discoveries. Fortunately for Anthropology the chances that this particular red herring will receive much attention are slim to none. As I said, science draws conclusions from the facts rather than trying to shoehorn the facts to meet the researcher's desires.
No one is stealing the "history" of Black Native Americans. It is a noble history but, one that only reaches back about 400 years.
Hi everyone. Some of the comments in the blog are about Noah`s ark, so i`m going to post a new that i was reading in an article, a time ago. This article was concerning to the current situation of glaciers in an area from Mount Ararat. In this area the ice and snow has been slipping so that is no longer the same as it was some years ago. Much of this mass of snow and ice has moved causing glaciers to change the old position that they had in previous years. This change in the position of glaciers affects an area of the mountain that is considered by many as the final resting place of Noah`s ark. A large object is in this place, but most of the time covered by snow and ice, and it is likely that this change in glaciers affects the current position of this object in the mountain.
Dr. Guidon is not infamous, she is an esteemed Brazilian archaeologist.The research of Dr. Guidon, Neves and etc., make it clear there were Negro/African PaleoAmericans. You have presented no evidence proving that paleoAmericans did not come from Africa, or that there are no reliably dated humans in the New World before 18,000 years bp . Consequently, why do you continue to make a fool of yourself ?
I have already shown that your proposed AMH-Neanderthal hybrid ancestor for Native Americans, that you claimed formerly lived in Central Asia, is a figment of your imagination . Your claim that Sub-Saharan Africans are not negroes is pure fiction. Everyone knows that the definition of negro, is a member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara. As a result when T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al, authors of the Manot article claim the skeletons from the Levant, were Sub-Saharan African, they are naming these anatomically modern humans: negroes. Yet you say the people labeled as Sub-Saharan Africans in the Levant 55,000-4000 BC were not negroes, this is double speech on your part.
Only an ignoramus would say that “crainiometrics are useless when attempting to assign ancient skulls to modern human races”; when researchers like T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al , identified the skulls of people living in the Levant 55-4kya : Sub-Saharan Africans, the name given to modern negroes in Africa.
Your other comments are also ludicrous. Stop trying to compare the work of Dr Nieda Guidon and Erik von Danikin. Dr. Guidon is a well respected archaeologist. Her work on anatomically modern humans in Brazil has been published in peer reviewed journals , so when she claims Africans were in the Americas 65-100,000 years ago she is basing her claim on archaeological evidence not conjecture. You may disagree, but stop trying to make up stuff to make yourself right, when you are wrong.
Finally, I don’t understand why you are discussing the Taungs child and "Miss Ples" these hominins are Australopithecus africanus who lived millions of years ago—not anatomically modern humans.
Stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
And here we go again. The Manot skull post was in response to your claim that there was no evidence of AMHs in the Levant 55,000 years ago. Clearly there is and they were. Manot man is firmly dated at 55,000 years bp and is clearly a modern human. NO WHERE did I claim it was a hybrid.
You said:
"Moreover, the Manot skeleton supports the research of T. Holliday that the ancient people in the Levant are identified as Negroes, or Sub-Saharan Africans"
In reply I'll use your own quote from the article. Emphasis mine.
"The authors of the Manot article wrote : “The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls AS WELL AS TO EUROPEAN SKULLS from the Upper Palaeolithic period," Let me just add once again that crainiometrics are useless when attempting to assign ancient skulls to modern human races. Also, Manot man consists of a calvarium. There are no facial bones present so, attempts to assign to any modern race would be tenuous at best.
Do you see the word "Negro" anywhere in that quote? Know why you don't? Because 55,000 years ago humans had yet to diversify into the racial phenotypes seen in today's population. "Negros" and "Caucasians" did not yet exist. Nor where their any "Mongoloids". As I mentioned quite a few posts back, you can not think of these people in modern racial terms.
You said:
"This statement makes it clear that Manot man was an African that lived among Neanderthal it does not claim they mixed. It also excludes the possibility that “ the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals “, so your idea about a hybrid AMH-Neanderthal ancestor for Native Americans is groundless."
Again, as I have repeatedly said that there is no doubt that AMHs left Africa and entered the Near East between 80 and 60,000 years ago. I am not arguing that the first moderns in the Levant were not from Africa so please, stop putting words in my mouth. CLEARLY these people were African in origin and just as CLEARLY, they were not "Negros" as no such people as yet existed. Nor were the first modern people in Europe "Caucasians" as those people also did not exist at that time. NO WHERE in the in the article is you assertion that the Manot people "lived among Neanderthals" without interbreeding found. We have absolutely no way of knowing that. All we can say from the evidence of this person at this time is that he does not appear to be descended from a Neanderthal based upon gross anatomy. Of course, a genomic analysis may find that isn't so. We shall see. The other thing to remember is that Manot man is dated to 55,000 years bp but, the hybridization event is thought to have occurred between 55,000 and 50,000 years bp. He may simply be to ancient to reflect that event.
Once again, you are relying upon anatomical features and not taking genetics into account. I can not admonish you enough when I say "they look alike" is not a valid argument for assigning relationships in ancient human populations. As I have stated many times, the admixture of Neanderthal DNA in modern, non African humans is not theoretical. It is fact. I might also remind you that the article says:
"Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations.”
(those Levantine populations would have been mixed with Progressive Neanderthals BTW. NO WHERE did I make the claim that AMHs and European i.e. Classic Neanderthals hybridized)
A very different statement from your interpretation of it:
"It also EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY that “ the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals “
Clearly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said to bolster your failed theory.
Therefore, your follow up statement:
"your idea about a hybrid AMH-Neanderthal ancestor for Native Americans is groundless."
Is entirely...groundless.
You also said:
"Moreover, the Manot skeleton supports the research of T. Holliday that the ancient people in the Levant are identified as Negroes, or Sub-Saharan Africans"
Once again, as there were no "Negros" in existence 55,000 years ago so, this statement too is false.
BTW, even the term Sub Saharan African is meaningless in this context as 55,000 years ago that area was quite lush with large river systems and vast grasslands. There simply was no Sahara to live below. African populations at this time lived across the continent from the Med to So Africa and from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. The African deserts would not form again until the Upper Pleniglacial AKA the Late glacial Cold Stage, 21,000 to 17,000 years ago.
Finally, you said:
"The line of evidence for a migration directly from Africa to the Americas is the research of Dr.Nieda Guidon that has been published in numerous articles that Africans were in Brazil between 65,000-100,000 years ago.Stop trying to steal the history of the African PaleoAmericans discovered by Dr. Guidon."
Once again, The specter of the infamous Dr Nieda Guidon raises its ugly head. Because something has been published in "numerous articles" does not mean it has any value. Remember, Erik von Danikin published many articles claiming aliens built the pyramids and numerous articles were published claiming that Eoanthropus dawsoni was the first "Englishman" and the earliest human ancestor. This was in spite of many of the era's greatest anatomists and anthropologists beliefs, and evidence that it was a hoax. It took over 40 years to expose it as such. Why so long? Because it appeared to be exactly what English Anthropologists thought the ancestor of modern humans SHOULD look like AND...it was British. Hubris is a terrible sin and wrecks havoc in science. Because the English scientific establishment were so invested in what they WANTED to be true i.e. that the first human had a big brain, was British and, as you can see from the reconstructions, White actual finds like the Taungs child and "Miss Ples" were ignored and marginalized. 40 years of retardation in researching real finds sacrificed to British vanity.
So, for the final time...Native Americans are NOT the result of a magical voyage of Africans across the So Atlantic to Brazil 65,000 to 100,000 years ago. There are no reliably dated humans in the New World before about 18,000 years bp (though the first people probably arrived between 20 and 25,000 years ago), ALL non African humans carry between 2 and 5% Neanderthal genes, and between .2 and 5% Densovan genes (confirmed), Neanderthal genes in toto make up about 20% of the non African human genome, and all Native Americans are descended from the same NE Asian mother population. these are not my opinions, these are established facts and no amount of wishful thinking on your part can change them, and...No one is trying to "steal the history of the African PaleoAmericans". No such people ever existed.
When I found this site I was like WoW and while I love to research history because for one to know where they are going the have to know where they came from.
with that you would think that the leaders of the word would put away there materialist ideals and truly see where we came from and at the same time focus on where we can go.
I have seen Sleipner's eight legs compared to the eight legs if the traditional pallbearers, but I don't know if the Norse had that tradition - did four men carry the dead to their resting place? Or is this a kind of Ex Post Facto symbolism, and attribution based on traditions that Sleipner actually predated?
Just because something isn't found does not mean it is not there. example look at the pyramid you have pyramids in egypt, china, south america. How could the same thing be built all over the world in the same way?
With the story of Noah that story has been told by people all over the world during a time where mass communication did not exist.
Fact of the matter is there are a lot of stories in the christian bible, the Koran, the juish Torah, and all of the other bigger religions that are the same not in the exact words but are the same. There are a lot of the holy sights that have the same meaning with the larger religions.
Religion was the creation of our world Religion will also be the destruction of our world.
Hello,
My name is Lew Blank, and I am a writer for atlasobscura.com. I have always been fascinated by Adam's Calendar, and I was wondering if it would be possible for me to use your photos of the stone structure for an article I'm writing. Of course, I would give full credit to you and your website.
My email is [email protected].
Thank you!
Lew Blank
world is full of ignorant people. best way is not to look at them or bother, will make your life easier. and up to them to believe what they want. if no such people around, the world would be united under 1 common language and as 1 race.
Your discussion of the 55,000 year old discovery of Manot man in the Levant does not support your theory that the first hybrid AMH-Neanderthal appeared in the Levant. See: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14134.html The authors of the Manot article wrote : “The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls as well as to European skulls from the Upper Palaeolithic period, but different from most other early anatomically modern humans in the Levant. This suggests that the Manot people could be closely related to the first modern humans who later successfully colonized Europe. Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations.” This statement mkes it clear that Manot man was an African that lived among Neanderthal it does not claim they mixed. It also excludes the possibility that “ the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals “, so your idea about a hybrid AMH-Neanderthal ancestor for Native Americans is groundless.
Moreover, the Manot skeleton supports the research of T. Holliday that the ancient people in the Levant are identified as Negroes, or Sub-Saharan Africans
The line of evidence for a migration directly from Africa to the Americas is the research of Dr.Nieda Guidon that has been published in numerous articles that Africans were in Brazil between 65,000-100,000 years ago.Stop trying to steal the history of the African PaleoAmericans discovered by Dr. Guidon.
Yes, "Negro" is the term used for Sub Saharan Africans. "Negroid" is a word used to describe people who look like "Negros". It literally means Negro like just as Caucasoid means Caucasian like. Negroid is not the same as Negro. Negro is a noun while Negroid is an adjective.
Did you not read the article? Here's a quote from the second paragraph:
"By developing powerful new statistical methods, an international team has identified how often and on which continents modern humans, Neandertals, and a second kind of archaic human called Denisovans met and mated. The researchers conclude that if you’re an East Asian, you have three Neandertals in your family tree; Europeans and South Asians have two, and Melanesians only one. (Africans, whose ancestors did not mate with Neanderthals, have none.)"
You are correct, the 40,000 year old individual did not pass on his genes. Nor did the 100,000 year old Altai individual but these are not the only hybridizing events. Others were successful. Hence, the quote above. All together the AMH genome is 20% Neanderthal. Each individual other than Africans, has between 2 and 5% Neanderthal genes. This has been proven beyond any doubt. It is not open for discussion.
"You said “ I said they left Africa 60,000 years bp, and stopped in the Levant for a while and mixed with Neanderthals about 55,000 years bp. The last common ancestor of Europeans and Native Americans lived in what is today So Russia about 45,000 years bp. Since you love articles so much.. “ This is false. There is no evidence that amh were in the Levant 60kya, or the ancestor of Native Americans and Europeans living in Siberia 45kya. The earliest examples of amh in Euroasia come from Spain and date to 45,000bp not the Levant.In the http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html#af... article there is discussion of an amh, Mal’ta man, dating to 24kya—not 45kya as you allege."
Actually, they date from 41,000 years bp for the Spanish bones. As to AMHs in the Levant, the Manot cave fossil from western Galilee is reliably dated to 55,000 years bp here's the news release from 2015:
Yes, the individual in the article was dated to 24,000 years bp but, that's not why I linked to it. You claimed there's no genetic evidence connecting ancient Europeans to Native Americans. That find proves that there is. The 45,000 years bp date comes from mapping of a human genomic clock based upon mitochondrial haplotypes.
Again, the Qafzeh-Es Skhul finds you are talking about are much later than the hybridization event. Yes, they are Africans and therefore, had no Neanderthal genetics. HOWEVER, the people they replaced who are ancestral to all non Africans had a major Neanderthal component to their genome. Biogeographically the Sinai and the Levant are considered to be a part of Africa rather than Asia so it is not surprising to find that African peoples. Both archaic and modern humans have moved back and forth through the area. No one is disputing that all AMH are descended from Africans. What I am disputing is your magical migration directly from Africa to the Americas. It simply did not happen. There is not one line of investigation that shows it ever happened and many that show conclusively that it did not. Stop trying to steal the East Asian heritage of Native Americans. Yes, you sound that silly.
The simple fact of the matter is you can not read my mind. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am wrong. Ever stop to think that maybe you are the one who suffers from Cognitive dissonance? Honestly, you need to update your data.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
There are many people who believe that as Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew according to Jewish law and customs that he was indeed married and indeed had children. Quite frankly there is no reason to believe he did not do these things since there was no reason he could not be husband, father and teacher. P.S. Ignore the Mohammedan.
Your claim that Sub-Saharan Africans today are negroes but, in the past they were not is pure fiction. Everyone knows that the definition of negro, is a member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara. As a result when T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al, authors of the Manot article claim the skeletons from the Levant, were Sub-Saharan African, they are naming these anatomically modern humans: negroes like the population living in Sub-Saharan Africa today. Yet you say the people labeled as Sub-Saharan Africans in the Levant 55,000-4000 BC were not negroes, this is double speech on your part.
You dispute Dr Nieda Guidon’s research but you have not cited any evidence that invalidates her research. Her work on anatomically modern humans in Brazil has been published in peer reviewed journals , so when she claims Africans were in the Americas 65-100,000 years ago she is basing her claim on archaeological evidence not conjecture. You may disagree, but stop trying to make up stuff to make yourself right, when you are wrong.
Stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
She most certainly is infamous though I think you exaggerate her "evidence" to a whole new level.
From her wiki page:
"Niède Guidon's most famous prehistoric site is the Toca do Boqueira de Pedra Furada ("Pedra Furada Site"), which is located in vicinity of São Raimundo Nonato in the Serra de Capivara region in Brazil. She came across a structure resembling a bonfire equipped with arranged logs and stones that SHE BELIEVES date back to 48,700 years ago. She has SUGGESTED that humans reached Brazil about 100,000 years ago, PROBABLY from Africa by boat.[3]
Not all researchers agree with her conclusions on this evidence, but there is undisputed lithic and paleobotanical evidence for a Paleoamerican occupation dating back to c. 10,000 years. Pedra Furada is a rock shelter 55 feet (17 m) deep; its walls are painted with more than 1,150 pre-historic images. Here she has found thousands of artifacts that possibly suggest human handiwork. The plant and animal remains recovered from the c. 10,000-year-old levels of this site and from comparable levels of another rockshelter in the Serra, the Perna site, show that the area was more humid and more forested than today."
In actuality, the oldest confirmed artifacts at Pedra Frauda, the rock paintings, have been indirectly dated to 10,500 bp. She claims that a rock fragment with red lines on it (not typical of the other works in the cave) is an artifact dating to 29,860 years bp however, most archaeologists believe it to be a naturally occurring rock or geofact and not of human making. Her "proof" for the presence of AMH in the Americas before this is a dubious pile of rocks and charcoal dated to 32,000 years bp. I have yet to see and actual finds with a date any earlier than this. Certainly, she has no artifacts or remains dated to between 80 and 100,000 years bp to support her hypothesis that Africans settled the Americas 100,000 years ago. As I stated in my last reply, there is no RELIABLE material dated before 18,000 bp showing any human presence in the Americas. Nor does Dr. Guidon have any. I don't know how acknowledging this fact makes a fool of me.
"I have already shown that your proposed AMH-Neanderthal hybrid ancestor for Native Americans, that you claimed formerly lived in Central Asia, is a figment of your imagination."
I don't know why you continue to insist this is the case. I have given you ample proof that all non African humane are the result of human Neanderthal mating but, here's one more for you:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14558.epdf?referrer_access_token=Ly...
"Your claim that Sub-Saharan Africans are not negroes is pure fiction. Everyone knows that the definition of negro, is a member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara."
I concur with this definition wholeheartedly. However, "originally native to Africa south of the Sahara" does not include Pacific Islanders, Native Australians, Melanesians or Native Americans. It only refers to African Blacks as historically known and is not valid as a description of those other peoples.
This might help"
"Around 1442, the Portuguese first arrived in Southern Africa while trying to find a sea route to India.[citation needed] The term negro, literally meaning 'black', was used by the Spanish and Portuguese as a simple description to refer to the Bantu peoples that they encountered. Negro denotes "black" in Spanish and Portuguese, derived from the Latin word niger, meaning black, which itself is probably from a Proto-Indo-European root *nekw-, "to be dark", akin to *nokw-, night.[1][2] "Negro" was also used of the peoples of West Africa in old maps labelled Negroland, an area stretching along the Niger River.
From the 18th century to the late 1960s, negro (later capitalized) was considered to be the proper English-language term for people of black African origin. According to Oxford Dictionaries, use of the word "now seems out of date or even offensive in both British and US English".[3]
A specifically female form of the word, negress (sometimes capitalized), was occasionally used. However, like Jewess, it has all but completely fallen from use.
Negroid has traditionally been used within physical anthropology to denote one of the three purported races of humankind, alongside Caucasoid and Mongoloid. The suffix -oid means "similar to". "Negroid" as a noun was used to designate a wider or more generalized category than Negro; as an adjective, it qualified a noun as in, for example, "negroid features".[4]"
"As a result when T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al, authors of the Manot article claim the skeletons from the Levant, were Sub-Saharan African, they are naming these anatomically modern humans: negroes. Yet you say the people labeled as Sub-Saharan Africans in the Levant 55,000-4000 BC were not negroes, this is double speech on your part."
Boy oh boy does your reading comprehension suck. That make no such claim. What they said is that the calvarium is consistent with contemporary people of Africa AND the earliest Europeans. No where did they say the Manot people were "Negros". There is absolutely no way to make that claim as 1) Negros in the sense the word is used today did not exist 55,000 years age and 2) even if they had been around the skull is missing its entire facial region and therefore cannot be assigned to ant racial group past or present. All that can be said is it's Modern, it's from the Levant and it's 55,000 years old. Any claims beyond that are just so much wishful thinking on your part. Additionally, I never said people "between 55,000 and 4,000 years ago" were not Negros. What I said is that 55,000 years ago "Negros" in the modern, racial sense of the word did not yet exist. Neither did Caucasians or Asians for that matter. Human races had yet to differentiate. ALL humans at that time had dark skin, eyes and hair. Europeans would not evolve light skin, hair and eyes for at least another 45,000 years!
"Only an ignoramus would say that “crainiometrics are useless when attempting to assign ancient skulls to modern human races”; when researchers like T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al , identified the skulls of people living in the Levant 55-4kya : Sub-Saharan Africans, the name given to modern negroes in Africa."
There's that Ad Hominem attack again. It only makes you look foolish when you do that. Oh, and this statement is pure poppycock on top of that. The reasons were already given several times. No need to repeat them...again.
And yes, "Sub-Saharan Africans, the name given to MODERN negroes in Africa."
Exactly. It is the term used to describe Negros living south of the Sahara TODAY. In ancient times Sub Saharan Africans refers to the basal stock from which ALL modern humans would later be derived. No "Negros" existed at that time.
"Your other comments are also ludicrous. Stop trying to compare the work of Dr Nieda Guidon and Erik von Danikin. Dr. Guidon is a well respected archaeologist. Her work on anatomically modern humans in Brazil has been published in peer reviewed journals , so when she claims Africans were in the Americas 65-100,000 years ago she is basing her claim on archaeological evidence not conjecture. You may disagree, but stop trying to make up stuff to make yourself right, when you are wrong."
While the above statement is mostly true being a respected scientist is no guarantee against making a fool of oneself. The illustrious Dr Louis Leakey famously made a laughing stock of himself by claiming that naturally created geofacts were 250,000 year old artifacts at Calico Mines California. We all make mistakes. It's also good to remember that Dr Guidon's Hypotheses are not based upon solid data. The majority of those who have reviewed her work feel that her cultural remains are in fact geofacts and her dates are in very shaky ground. Bearing this in mind remember, she is SUGGESTING this to be the case. She herself is not asserting that her hypothesis correct. You are turning her conjecture into "fact". It is you who is in fact trying to "make yourself right" by asserting "facts" that are not in evidence.
"Finally, I don’t understand why you are discussing the Taungs child and "Miss Ples" these hominins are Australopithecus africanus who lived millions of years ago—not anatomically modern humans."
I was simply using the Eoanthropus hoax and the resulting derailing of legitimate research (Taungs, Miss Ples) as a correlating cautionary tale against hubris in science. A demonstration of how a wild goose chase after what we expect to see can hold back scientific progress by diverting attention and funding away from real discoveries. Fortunately for Anthropology the chances that this particular red herring will receive much attention are slim to none. As I said, science draws conclusions from the facts rather than trying to shoehorn the facts to meet the researcher's desires.
No one is stealing the "history" of Black Native Americans. It is a noble history but, one that only reaches back about 400 years.
Hi everyone. Some of the comments in the blog are about Noah`s ark, so i`m going to post a new that i was reading in an article, a time ago. This article was concerning to the current situation of glaciers in an area from Mount Ararat. In this area the ice and snow has been slipping so that is no longer the same as it was some years ago. Much of this mass of snow and ice has moved causing glaciers to change the old position that they had in previous years. This change in the position of glaciers affects an area of the mountain that is considered by many as the final resting place of Noah`s ark. A large object is in this place, but most of the time covered by snow and ice, and it is likely that this change in glaciers affects the current position of this object in the mountain.
Dude, I think you're overreacting, so he made a spelling mistake, it's a common mistake, a lot of people confuse then and than.
Dr. Guidon is not infamous, she is an esteemed Brazilian archaeologist.The research of Dr. Guidon, Neves and etc., make it clear there were Negro/African PaleoAmericans. You have presented no evidence proving that paleoAmericans did not come from Africa, or that there are no reliably dated humans in the New World before 18,000 years bp . Consequently, why do you continue to make a fool of yourself ?
I have already shown that your proposed AMH-Neanderthal hybrid ancestor for Native Americans, that you claimed formerly lived in Central Asia, is a figment of your imagination . Your claim that Sub-Saharan Africans are not negroes is pure fiction. Everyone knows that the definition of negro, is a member of a dark-skinned group of peoples originally native to Africa south of the Sahara. As a result when T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al, authors of the Manot article claim the skeletons from the Levant, were Sub-Saharan African, they are naming these anatomically modern humans: negroes. Yet you say the people labeled as Sub-Saharan Africans in the Levant 55,000-4000 BC were not negroes, this is double speech on your part.
Only an ignoramus would say that “crainiometrics are useless when attempting to assign ancient skulls to modern human races”; when researchers like T. Holliday and Israel Hershkovitz et al , identified the skulls of people living in the Levant 55-4kya : Sub-Saharan Africans, the name given to modern negroes in Africa.
Your other comments are also ludicrous. Stop trying to compare the work of Dr Nieda Guidon and Erik von Danikin. Dr. Guidon is a well respected archaeologist. Her work on anatomically modern humans in Brazil has been published in peer reviewed journals , so when she claims Africans were in the Americas 65-100,000 years ago she is basing her claim on archaeological evidence not conjecture. You may disagree, but stop trying to make up stuff to make yourself right, when you are wrong.
Finally, I don’t understand why you are discussing the Taungs child and "Miss Ples" these hominins are Australopithecus africanus who lived millions of years ago—not anatomically modern humans.
Stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
And here we go again. The Manot skull post was in response to your claim that there was no evidence of AMHs in the Levant 55,000 years ago. Clearly there is and they were. Manot man is firmly dated at 55,000 years bp and is clearly a modern human. NO WHERE did I claim it was a hybrid.
You said:
"Moreover, the Manot skeleton supports the research of T. Holliday that the ancient people in the Levant are identified as Negroes, or Sub-Saharan Africans"
In reply I'll use your own quote from the article. Emphasis mine.
"The authors of the Manot article wrote : “The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls AS WELL AS TO EUROPEAN SKULLS from the Upper Palaeolithic period," Let me just add once again that crainiometrics are useless when attempting to assign ancient skulls to modern human races. Also, Manot man consists of a calvarium. There are no facial bones present so, attempts to assign to any modern race would be tenuous at best.
Do you see the word "Negro" anywhere in that quote? Know why you don't? Because 55,000 years ago humans had yet to diversify into the racial phenotypes seen in today's population. "Negros" and "Caucasians" did not yet exist. Nor where their any "Mongoloids". As I mentioned quite a few posts back, you can not think of these people in modern racial terms.
You said:
"This statement makes it clear that Manot man was an African that lived among Neanderthal it does not claim they mixed. It also excludes the possibility that “ the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals “, so your idea about a hybrid AMH-Neanderthal ancestor for Native Americans is groundless."
Again, as I have repeatedly said that there is no doubt that AMHs left Africa and entered the Near East between 80 and 60,000 years ago. I am not arguing that the first moderns in the Levant were not from Africa so please, stop putting words in my mouth. CLEARLY these people were African in origin and just as CLEARLY, they were not "Negros" as no such people as yet existed. Nor were the first modern people in Europe "Caucasians" as those people also did not exist at that time. NO WHERE in the in the article is you assertion that the Manot people "lived among Neanderthals" without interbreeding found. We have absolutely no way of knowing that. All we can say from the evidence of this person at this time is that he does not appear to be descended from a Neanderthal based upon gross anatomy. Of course, a genomic analysis may find that isn't so. We shall see. The other thing to remember is that Manot man is dated to 55,000 years bp but, the hybridization event is thought to have occurred between 55,000 and 50,000 years bp. He may simply be to ancient to reflect that event.
Once again, you are relying upon anatomical features and not taking genetics into account. I can not admonish you enough when I say "they look alike" is not a valid argument for assigning relationships in ancient human populations. As I have stated many times, the admixture of Neanderthal DNA in modern, non African humans is not theoretical. It is fact. I might also remind you that the article says:
"Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations.”
(those Levantine populations would have been mixed with Progressive Neanderthals BTW. NO WHERE did I make the claim that AMHs and European i.e. Classic Neanderthals hybridized)
A very different statement from your interpretation of it:
"It also EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY that “ the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals “
Clearly, you are misrepresenting what was actually said to bolster your failed theory.
Therefore, your follow up statement:
"your idea about a hybrid AMH-Neanderthal ancestor for Native Americans is groundless."
Is entirely...groundless.
You also said:
"Moreover, the Manot skeleton supports the research of T. Holliday that the ancient people in the Levant are identified as Negroes, or Sub-Saharan Africans"
Once again, as there were no "Negros" in existence 55,000 years ago so, this statement too is false.
BTW, even the term Sub Saharan African is meaningless in this context as 55,000 years ago that area was quite lush with large river systems and vast grasslands. There simply was no Sahara to live below. African populations at this time lived across the continent from the Med to So Africa and from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. The African deserts would not form again until the Upper Pleniglacial AKA the Late glacial Cold Stage, 21,000 to 17,000 years ago.
Finally, you said:
"The line of evidence for a migration directly from Africa to the Americas is the research of Dr.Nieda Guidon that has been published in numerous articles that Africans were in Brazil between 65,000-100,000 years ago.Stop trying to steal the history of the African PaleoAmericans discovered by Dr. Guidon."
Once again, The specter of the infamous Dr Nieda Guidon raises its ugly head. Because something has been published in "numerous articles" does not mean it has any value. Remember, Erik von Danikin published many articles claiming aliens built the pyramids and numerous articles were published claiming that Eoanthropus dawsoni was the first "Englishman" and the earliest human ancestor. This was in spite of many of the era's greatest anatomists and anthropologists beliefs, and evidence that it was a hoax. It took over 40 years to expose it as such. Why so long? Because it appeared to be exactly what English Anthropologists thought the ancestor of modern humans SHOULD look like AND...it was British. Hubris is a terrible sin and wrecks havoc in science. Because the English scientific establishment were so invested in what they WANTED to be true i.e. that the first human had a big brain, was British and, as you can see from the reconstructions, White actual finds like the Taungs child and "Miss Ples" were ignored and marginalized. 40 years of retardation in researching real finds sacrificed to British vanity.
So, for the final time...Native Americans are NOT the result of a magical voyage of Africans across the So Atlantic to Brazil 65,000 to 100,000 years ago. There are no reliably dated humans in the New World before about 18,000 years bp (though the first people probably arrived between 20 and 25,000 years ago), ALL non African humans carry between 2 and 5% Neanderthal genes, and between .2 and 5% Densovan genes (confirmed), Neanderthal genes in toto make up about 20% of the non African human genome, and all Native Americans are descended from the same NE Asian mother population. these are not my opinions, these are established facts and no amount of wishful thinking on your part can change them, and...No one is trying to "steal the history of the African PaleoAmericans". No such people ever existed.
When I found this site I was like WoW and while I love to research history because for one to know where they are going the have to know where they came from.
with that you would think that the leaders of the word would put away there materialist ideals and truly see where we came from and at the same time focus on where we can go.
I have seen Sleipner's eight legs compared to the eight legs if the traditional pallbearers, but I don't know if the Norse had that tradition - did four men carry the dead to their resting place? Or is this a kind of Ex Post Facto symbolism, and attribution based on traditions that Sleipner actually predated?
Just because something isn't found does not mean it is not there. example look at the pyramid you have pyramids in egypt, china, south america. How could the same thing be built all over the world in the same way?
With the story of Noah that story has been told by people all over the world during a time where mass communication did not exist.
Fact of the matter is there are a lot of stories in the christian bible, the Koran, the juish Torah, and all of the other bigger religions that are the same not in the exact words but are the same. There are a lot of the holy sights that have the same meaning with the larger religions.
Religion was the creation of our world Religion will also be the destruction of our world.
music origins
Hello,
My name is Lew Blank, and I am a writer for atlasobscura.com. I have always been fascinated by Adam's Calendar, and I was wondering if it would be possible for me to use your photos of the stone structure for an article I'm writing. Of course, I would give full credit to you and your website.
My email is [email protected].
Thank you!
Lew Blank
The slits in the rocks are in rows. They look like preparation to split the rocks with wedges.
world is full of ignorant people. best way is not to look at them or bother, will make your life easier. and up to them to believe what they want. if no such people around, the world would be united under 1 common language and as 1 race.
I must have missed something. According to the article, the Scythians SCULPTED the thing. How is it that they also defaced it?
Your discussion of the 55,000 year old discovery of Manot man in the Levant does not support your theory that the first hybrid AMH-Neanderthal appeared in the Levant. See: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v520/n7546/full/nature14134.html The authors of the Manot article wrote : “The overall shape and discrete morphological features of the Manot 1 calvaria demonstrate that this partial skull is unequivocally modern. It is similar in shape to recent African skulls as well as to European skulls from the Upper Palaeolithic period, but different from most other early anatomically modern humans in the Levant. This suggests that the Manot people could be closely related to the first modern humans who later successfully colonized Europe. Thus, the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals, but rather from earlier Levantine populations.” This statement mkes it clear that Manot man was an African that lived among Neanderthal it does not claim they mixed. It also excludes the possibility that “ the anatomical features used to support the ‘assimilation model’ in Europe might not have been inherited from European Neanderthals “, so your idea about a hybrid AMH-Neanderthal ancestor for Native Americans is groundless.
Moreover, the Manot skeleton supports the research of T. Holliday that the ancient people in the Levant are identified as Negroes, or Sub-Saharan Africans
The line of evidence for a migration directly from Africa to the Americas is the research of Dr.Nieda Guidon that has been published in numerous articles that Africans were in Brazil between 65,000-100,000 years ago.Stop trying to steal the history of the African PaleoAmericans discovered by Dr. Guidon.
BTW, you can actually buy a kit from the National Genomic project and have your Neanderthal/Denisovan quotient tested.
Yes, "Negro" is the term used for Sub Saharan Africans. "Negroid" is a word used to describe people who look like "Negros". It literally means Negro like just as Caucasoid means Caucasian like. Negroid is not the same as Negro. Negro is a noun while Negroid is an adjective.
Did you not read the article? Here's a quote from the second paragraph:
"By developing powerful new statistical methods, an international team has identified how often and on which continents modern humans, Neandertals, and a second kind of archaic human called Denisovans met and mated. The researchers conclude that if you’re an East Asian, you have three Neandertals in your family tree; Europeans and South Asians have two, and Melanesians only one. (Africans, whose ancestors did not mate with Neanderthals, have none.)"
You are correct, the 40,000 year old individual did not pass on his genes. Nor did the 100,000 year old Altai individual but these are not the only hybridizing events. Others were successful. Hence, the quote above. All together the AMH genome is 20% Neanderthal. Each individual other than Africans, has between 2 and 5% Neanderthal genes. This has been proven beyond any doubt. It is not open for discussion.
"You said “ I said they left Africa 60,000 years bp, and stopped in the Levant for a while and mixed with Neanderthals about 55,000 years bp. The last common ancestor of Europeans and Native Americans lived in what is today So Russia about 45,000 years bp. Since you love articles so much.. “ This is false. There is no evidence that amh were in the Levant 60kya, or the ancestor of Native Americans and Europeans living in Siberia 45kya. The earliest examples of amh in Euroasia come from Spain and date to 45,000bp not the Levant.In the http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12736.html#af... article there is discussion of an amh, Mal’ta man, dating to 24kya—not 45kya as you allege."
Actually, they date from 41,000 years bp for the Spanish bones. As to AMHs in the Levant, the Manot cave fossil from western Galilee is reliably dated to 55,000 years bp here's the news release from 2015:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015/01/28/Oldest-human-remains-outside-...
Yes, the individual in the article was dated to 24,000 years bp but, that's not why I linked to it. You claimed there's no genetic evidence connecting ancient Europeans to Native Americans. That find proves that there is. The 45,000 years bp date comes from mapping of a human genomic clock based upon mitochondrial haplotypes.
Again, the Qafzeh-Es Skhul finds you are talking about are much later than the hybridization event. Yes, they are Africans and therefore, had no Neanderthal genetics. HOWEVER, the people they replaced who are ancestral to all non Africans had a major Neanderthal component to their genome. Biogeographically the Sinai and the Levant are considered to be a part of Africa rather than Asia so it is not surprising to find that African peoples. Both archaic and modern humans have moved back and forth through the area. No one is disputing that all AMH are descended from Africans. What I am disputing is your magical migration directly from Africa to the Americas. It simply did not happen. There is not one line of investigation that shows it ever happened and many that show conclusively that it did not. Stop trying to steal the East Asian heritage of Native Americans. Yes, you sound that silly.
The simple fact of the matter is you can not read my mind. Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am wrong. Ever stop to think that maybe you are the one who suffers from Cognitive dissonance? Honestly, you need to update your data.
Thank you for your differential analysis Dr Freud.
Pages