All  
DNA, land bridge, Beringia, Ice Age, Americas, genetics, South America, humans, Paleoamerican, Naia, Luzia, skeletons, archaeology

Did Paleoamericans Reach South America First?

Print

In “ Textbook Story of How Humans Populated America is Biologically Unviable, Study Finds , recently published in Ancient Origins, it was noted that DNA studies indicate that people could not have crossed the Beringia land bridge to enter the Americas 13,000 years ago because the “entry route was biologically unviable”. Although this finding by geneticists is surprising, it adds even more mystery to the archaeological evidence that anatomically modern humans were in South America tens of thousands of years before Ice Age people could have crossed a viable land bridge between Alaska and Siberia.

Bering land bridge.

Bering land bridge. ( Public Domain )

The earliest dates for habitation of the American continent to occur below Canada in South America are highly suggestive that the earliest settlers on the American continents came from Africa before the Ice melted at the Bering Strait and moved northward as the ice melted. An African origin for these people is a good fit because Ocean Currents would have carried migrants from Africa to the Americas, since there were no Ice Age sheets of ice to block passage across the southern Atlantic.

Important Archeological Sites

Dr. Bryan, in Natural History has noted many sites where PaleoAmericans have left us evidence of human habitation, including the pebble tools at Monte Verde in Chile (c.32,000 Before Present), rock paintings at Pedra Furada in Brazil (c.22,000 BP), and mastodon hunting in Venezuela and Colombia (c.13,000 BP). These discoveries have led some researchers to believe that the Americas were first settled from South America.

The main evidence from the ancient Americans are prehistoric tools and rock art, like those found by Dr. Nieda Guidon. Today archaeologists have found sites of human occupation from Canada to Chile that range between 20,000 and 100,000 years old. Guidon, in numerous articles claims that Africans were in Brazil between 65,000-100,000 years ago. Guidon also claims that man was at the Brazilian sites 65,000 years ago. She told the New York Times that her dating of human populations in Brazil 100,000 years ago was based on the presence of ancient fire and tools of human craftsmanship at habitation sites.

Martin and R. G. Klein, after discussing the evidence of mastodon hunting in Venezuela 13,000 years ago, observed that: "The thought that the fossil record of South America is much richer in evidence of early archaeological associations than many believed is indeed provocative.... Have the earliest hunters been overlooked in North America? “

Warwick Bray has pointed out that there are numerous sites in North and South America which are over 35,000 years old.  A.L. Bryan noted that these sites include, the Old Crow Basin (c.38,000 BC) in Canada; Orogrande Cave (c.36,000 BC) in the United States; and Pedra Furada (c.45,000 BC) in Brazil.

Stone arch at Pedra Furada, Brazil.

Stone arch at Pedra Furada, Brazil. ( Public Domain )

Using craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods, Dr. Neves determined that Paleo Americans were either Australian, African or Melanesians. The research of Neves indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, PaleoAmericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and an Asiatic population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC. 

Melanesian Blond girl from Vanuatu.

Melanesian Blond girl from Vanuatu. ( CC BY-SA 2.0 )

Archaeologist have reconstructed the faces of ancient Americans from Brazil and Mexico. These faces are based on the skeletal remains dating back to 12,000BC. The PaleoAmericans resemble the first Europeans.

PaleoAmericans and First European

PaleoAmericans and First European

Researchers working on the prehistoric cultures of these ancient people note that they resemble the Black Variety of humanity, instead of contemporary Native Americans. The Black Variety include the Blacks of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific.

Dr. Chatters, who found Naia's skeleton, told Smithsonian Magazine that: “The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."

A cast of Luzia's skull at the National Museum of Natural History.

A cast of Luzia's skull at the National Museum of Natural History. (CC BY-SA 2.0 )

Although Dr. Chatters believes the PaleoAmericans came from Asia, this seems unlikely, because of the Ice sheet that blocked migration from Asia into the Americas. C. Vance Haynes noted that: "If people have been in South America for over 30,000 years, or even 20,000 years, why are there so few sites? [....]One possible answer is that they were so few in number; another is that South America was somehow initially populated from directions other than north until Clovis appeared".

The fact that the Beringia land bridge was unviable 15,000 years ago make it unlikely that during the Ice Age man would have been able to walk or to sail from Asia to South America at this time. As a result, these people were probably from Africa, as suggested by Dr. Guidon.

Prehistoric Sea Travel

In summary, the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska was unviable before 13,000 BC. Even though man could not enter the Americas until after 14,000 years ago, man was probably in South America as early 100,000 years ago, according to Dr. Guidon’s research in Brazil.

The first people in the Americas are called PaleoAmericans. The research of Chatters and Neves indicate that the PaleoAmericans were not Asiatic. These researchers claim the PaleoAmericans, “more closely resembl[ed] the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific.”

The first Americans probably came to the Americas by sea, due to the unviable land route to the Americas before 13,000 BC. As a result, we must agree with Guidon that man probably traveled from Africa to settle prehistoric America.

The archaeological evidence indicates that PaleoAmericans settled South America before North America, and that these Americans did not belong to the Clovis culture. Africa is the most likely origin of the PaleoAmericans, because the Ice sheet along the Pacific shoreline of North America, Siberia and Alaska, would have made the sea route from Asia or Europe unviable 65,000 years ago. The Dufuna boat dating back to 8,000 BC, shows that Africans had boats at this early date. The culture associated with the Dufuna boat dates back to 20,000 years ago.

Dugout canoes hewn from wood at Lake Malawi, East African Rift system.

Dugout canoes hewn from wood at Lake Malawi, East African Rift system. ( CC BY-SA 2.0 )

--

Top Image: Rock paintings at Pedra Furada, Brazil ( CC BY-SA 4.0 )

By Clyde Winters

References

Bray, Warwick. 1988. "The Paleoindian debate". Nature 332, (10 March), p.107.

Bryan, A. L. 1987. "Points of Order". Natural History , pp.7-11.

Guidon, N. and Delibrias, G. 1986. “Carbon-14 dates point to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago.” Nature 321:769-771.

Guidon, N., and B. Arnaud. 1991. “The chronology of the New World: Two faces of one reality.” World Arch. 23(2):167-178.

Guidon, N., et al.1996.  "Nature and Age of the Deposits in Pedra Furada, Brazil: Reply to Meltzer, Adovasio & Dillehay," Antiquity, 70:408.

Haynes,Jr., C.V. 1988. "Geofacts and Fanny". Natural History ,(February)pp.4-12.

Kumar, Mohi. 2014. DNA From 12,000-Year-Old Skeleton Helps Answer the Question: Who Were the First Americans? [Online] Retrieved  16 August 2016 at : http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/?no-ist

Martin, P. S. and R.G.Klein (eds.), Quarternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution , (Tucson:University of Arizona Press,1989) p.111.

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1989. Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura, 41: 566–75

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1990. The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 81: 247.

Neves, W. A. and Pucciarelli, H. M. 1991. Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution, 21: 261–73.

Neves, W. A. and Meyer, D. 1993. The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 16 (Suppl): 150–1.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F., Prous, A. and Ozolins, E. G. 1998. Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 26(Suppl): 169.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999a. Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Intercieˆncia, 24: 258–63.

Neves, W. A., Powell, J. F. and Ozolins, E. G. 1999b. Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution, 37: 129–33.

Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273. 

Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268

Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263. [Online] Available at:   http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf 

Neves, W.A., Gonza´ lez-Jose´ , R., Hubbe, M., Kipnis, R., Araujo, A.G.M., Blasi, O., 2004. Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36, 479-501

Neves, W. A., and M. Hubbe. 2005. Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102:18,309–18,314.

NYT (New York Times). (2015) Human’s First Appearance in the Americas  [Online] Available at:   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?hp&_r=4 

Powell,J.F. (2005). First Americans:Races, Evolution  and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press.

Winters,C. (2013). African Empires in Ancient America. [Online] Available at:   https://www.amazon.com/African-Empires-Ancient-America-Winters/dp/0615796583

Winters,C. (2015). THE PALEOAMERICANS CAME FROM AFRICA, jirr. Vol. 3 (3) July-September, pp.71-83/Winter. [Online] Available at:   https://www.academia.edu/17137182/THE_PALEOAMERICANS_CAME_FROM_AFRICA

Comments

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.

Clyde Winters's picture

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.

Clyde Winters's picture

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:

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.

Pages

Next article