| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - European links to Ancient Americans
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


European links to Ancient Americans

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: European links to Ancient Americans
    Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 06:32
On another thread in this forum, there was discussion about the origins of the earliest American Indians.
 
One member made the comment that American Indians were an admixture of Europeans and Indians, and this is why some North American Indian Tribes have European phenotypes.
 
I doubt that he knows it, but he may have been closer to the truth than has been previously known.
 
An article on arsTechnica suggests that European admixture with Asians en route to the Americas could well have taken place in Siberia.
 

Ancient Siberian’s skeleton yields links to Europe and Native Americans

Our ancestors intermingled in complicated ways and did not sit still.

by John Timmer - Nov 21 2013, 9:51am TDT

Enlarge / One of the stone figures found in the region of Siberia where the new genome originated.
Kelly E Graf

All the evidence indicates that the Americas were populated by people who migrated across the Bering Sea at a time when the ice age lowered ocean levels enough to do it. Well, almost all the evidence. Some of the oldest skeletons found in the new world have features that look somewhat European, a link supported by a few pieces of DNA found in some Native American populations. Now, a 20,000-year-old skeleton from Siberia may help clear up the confusion.

The skeleton indicates that the confusion may be caused by a combination of migration and population structure within Asia at the time. The end result is that some exchanges of DNA only went in one direction—and the donors then moved on to other locations.

Genetically, Native Americans share a strong affinity with East Asian peoples. There are a couple of exceptions, however, such as a somewhat European-looking mitochondrial DNA sequence found in some Native American populations. But that could be viewed as a product of later contamination by European visitors. What's harder to understand is the presence of features in skeletons such as Kennewick Man, who died over 7,000 years ago in what's now Washington state. Kennewick Man didn't look very much like modern Native American populations, raising questions about how he ended up in the Pacific Northwest at that time.

A skeleton called MA-1, found in the Altai region of Siberia, may provide a way to tidy up this confusion. MA-1 lived in an area northwest of Lake Baikal (north of Mongolia) roughly 24,000 years ago. This was in the heart of the most recent ice age shortly before a period called the Last Glacial Maximum. Despite the undoubtedly harsh conditions that prevailed, the area was producing some of the earliest known artwork based on human figures at the time.

DNA work yielded a mitochondrial genome from the individual, as well as a 1X coverage of the entire nuclear genome. (That means that every base is, on average, sequenced once. But since the sequences are random, some areas don't actually get sequenced at all, while a few will end up being sequenced dozens of times.) It's not enough to say anything about what this individual's genes were doing, but it is enough to figure out who he's related to.

And that turns out to be a rather complicated story. Despite his location near Mongolia, the MA-1 sequence looks like it branched off from the group that eventually populated Europe and Western Asia. The mitochondrial genome, although it belongs to a lineage that seems to have died out, looks similar to those of the Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who populated Europe at the time. The Y chromosome also looks like it split off near the base of the tree that includes modern Europeans.

But it also looks like it resides near the root of Native American populations, while it doesn't show up in any modern East Asian population we've looked at.

The same thing happened when the researchers looked at the full nuclear genome. The sequences typically looked like they were near the base of the modern Eurasian family tree, but a few also had strong links to a native Brazilian population. Statistically, the authors find that somewhere between 20 to 40 percent of MA-1's genome contributed to the people who populated the Americas. Again, the nearby cultures of East Asia, such as the Chinese, do not share these sequences.

How is all of this explained? The authors turn to the concept of population structure, which occurs when groups of the same species end up reproductively isolated from each other. For example, MA-1's population, despite being rather close to China, did not seem to have interbred with the ancestors of the Han Chinese (the Gobi desert possibly having something to do with that). However, the ancestral population of the East Asians split off a group that did interbreed with MA-1's relatives but then promptly left Asia for the Americas. This genetic intermingling seems to have taken place very early, given that all Native American populations tested seem to be about equally distant to MA-1's genome.

To confuse matters further, MA-1's population seems to have wandered in the opposite direction, settling in Western Asia and Europe. A bit of sequence from a 14,000-year-old skeleton from the region, however, suggests that the population was tough enough to ride out the Last Glacial Maximum in Siberia.

The work is another great indication of how our ability to work with ancient DNA is completely revolutionizing how we understand humanity's past. And, as in the case with the Denisovans and Neanderthals, that past is a complicated mix of interbreeding, migration, and population structure.

Nature, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/nature12736  (About DOIs).

Has anyone else heard of this theory?
 
Comments please.


Edited by toyomotor - 23 Mar 2014 at 06:33
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 15:08
Nothing controversial in the article above. It is known early Eurasian populations intermixed for a long time, before the groups that headed east crossed to the Americas. The only problematic point in there is calling "European" to people that probably wasn't even from Europe and whose descendants colonized Europe later. Come on, there are "European" looking people in Afghanistan, and there was even an "European" population in China in times as recent as 2.000 years ago.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Mar 2014 at 15:14
European is indeed misleading. An better, allthough not perfect term, would be europide or caucasoide. But we have to keep in mind, that it does not mean european, but just european-like.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 00:19
Come on you two, that's just petty.
 
Of course Europe, as we know it, didn't exist. Does anyone have a name for the land mass before it became known as Europe?
 
I didn't say that the article was controversial.
 
I found the article interesting, especially the reference to Kennewick Man, and the fact despite what some will say, there is room for the suggestion that caucasoid people were among the first to migrate to what is now the USA.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 07:35
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Come on you two, that's just petty.
 
Of course Europe, as we know it, didn't exist. Does anyone have a name for the land mass before it became known as Europe?
 
I didn't say that the article was controversial.
 
I found the article interesting, especially the reference to Kennewick Man, and the fact despite what some will say, there is room for the suggestion that caucasoid people were among the first to migrate to what is now the USA.

The first research identified him as europide. I said, the term is misleading, cos it says only, that he has no negride or mongolide features. Today the Kennewick man is mostly linked with non- or less mongolide asian populations.
Etiam si omnes, ego non.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Mar 2014 at 11:19
beorna:
Can we meet in the middle?
 
How about Kennewick Man is non-Mongoloid/non Asian?
 
MA-1 was also non Mongoloid/non Asian.
 
penguin:
 
The following is an extract from a Wiki article, well resourced and referenced.
 
The discovery of Kennewick Man, along with other ancient skeletons, has furthered scientific debate over the exact origin and history of early Native American people.[6] One hypothesis holds that a single wave of migration occurred, consisting of hunters and gatherers following large herds of game, which wandered across the Bering land bridge around 12,000 years ago. Other hypotheses contend that there were numerous waves of migration to the Americas. The apparent diversity of ancient skeletal remains, which may include traits not typically associated with modern Native Americans, has been used as evidence to support these rival hypotheses. A 2008 study on the genetics of modern Native American populations suggests that the 86 samples taken are descendants of a single migration that spread out along a coastal route prior to the Clovis era.[15]
 
The phrases marked in red are of particular interest-I think anyway.


Edited by toyomotor - 24 Mar 2014 at 11:20
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2014 at 00:50
Perhaps you should research what it means to be "Asian". Before mongoloids dominated in East Asia, for instance, in the region there were Australoids and Austronesian peoples. Besides, it is known that Euripids also lived in East Asia. So all those theories make little sense, because what matters is that the people that entered into the Americas came from Siberia, and still today theirs direct descendants are related to Siberians.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Mar 2014 at 02:05
I fully understand that Asians weren't Mongoloid at the beginning. But in the context of the article, I think Mongoloid is what's meant.
 
No ones arguing that the first people to enter the Americas didn't travel via Siberia, Beringia etc. just that somewhere along the way, before reaching the Americas, there were "Europoids", "Caucasians", call them what you like, there somewhere.
 
There's been mention of the Caucasian people who lived in China ~2000 years ago. I suspect that's a reference to the Cuman People, who were allegedly an Indo/Turkic people who lived near the big bend in the Yellow River in China.
 
But the early "Indian" phenotype as shown in the Creek Indian picture looks more mid European that Turkic.
 
Nor are we in a position to debate the theory of several migrations into the Americas, so in one of the migrations, there could or probably were in this case, Europeans.
 
What's your view on the statement in the Wiki article that the originals were pre-Clovis?
 
Also, another article from arsTechnica, which you may find interesting:-
 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 25 Mar 2014 at 02:54
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 02:48
You assume that Creek Indians were pure blood Indigenous people. By 19th century (the time of photography) that's not a matter of fact. There was already admixture both in Euroamerican descendant and natives populations. Just take a look to U.S. history. It wasn't an experience like in Australia at all. And unlike in Australia, the first Europeans arrived to today's North America in the 16th century, and if you count the Viking few expeditions the time of contact was even earlier, at 10th century! So, some degree of admixture was already there when those pictures were taken.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2014 at 03:08
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You assume that Creek Indians were pure blood Indigenous people. By 19th century (the time of photography) that's not a matter of fact. There was already admixture both in Euroamerican descendant and natives populations. Just take a look to U.S. history. It wasn't an experience like in Australia at all. And unlike in Australia, the first Europeans arrived to today's North America in the 16th century, and if you count the Viking few expeditions the time of contact was even earlier, at 10th century! So, some degree of admixture was already there when those pictures were taken.
 
And you can't prove that they weren't pure blood European.
 
There is no proof that in fact Europeans did not join the migration to the Americas, albeit in smaller numbers than their "Asian" co-travellers.
 
The suggestion that Europeans may have mixed with the Asian migrants prior to reaching the Americas is valid.
 
If this is accepted, then one must also accept that there is a possibility that Europeans, with no Asian admixture at all, may have joined the migration.
 
Your contention that the European looking "Indians" were the result of a later admixture is also not born out by any proof. You forget that in those days, for a white man to take a "squaw" was socially unacceptable-at any level of society and appears not to be widespread.
 
While you maintain a view against European migrations to the Americas, particularly the North American region, there is no available evidence to deny the possibility, nor can you disprove the probability of several migratory waves and even back migration.
 
It has been ascertained, as I understand it, that people did not simply migrate, en masse, but first sent scouts ahead to see what existed. The main population would follow once the decision had been made by the tribal or community elders.
 
This in itself leaves a place for Europeans, seeing the Asian people moving in a certain direction, to question why, and to either join or follow them.
 
Why are you so ethnocentric on this issue?
 
Why should it be that, among the first waves of immigrants, there couldn't possibly be Europeans?
 
Stop being so pig headed!
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Mar 2014 at 13:30
You start from a false stand, defining what is "European". If you go to Europe in the past, and consider only Native Europeans, you will see there have lot of admixture on that continent with people coming from Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. And certainly, if you try to distinguish "Europeans" from "Amerindians" by genetics alone you will have more than a trouble, because Europeans and Central Asian populations (one of whose branch are the Amerindians) separated in a past which is not much distant (perhaps 15.000 to 30.000 years ago as much). That's why, determining the genetics of Amerindian origins is troublesome. So, if a European in the Americas mark finish or Chinese in a DNA test, perhaps what really is telling us is an Amerindian ancestor.

Now with respect to the racist term "squaw", it was introduced in the English colonies about the time of the arrival in mass of Germans, people with a strong racism, unlike the early settlers. But that doesn't discount the fact that for many settlers, particularly for frontier men, an indigenous woman was a lot more worthy than an European woman. And indigenous women knew how to make cloths for the new environment, to make food with new plants, and knew the tricks of the trappers, and had the contacts to buy furs. Something a white woman lacked. And yes, discrimination exists but that didn't stop Pocahontas and many other indigenous women to get into the aristocracy of colonial North America.

And with respect to Latin America, there mixed people reached high ranks as well. So, please get an update on your knowledge. Apartheid style colonization is part of the history of South Africa and Australia. Even New Zealand integrated its native better. And the history of your Tasmania is even worst, with the extermination of natives. No mixed breed there!




Edited by pinguin - 29 Mar 2014 at 13:33
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2014 at 02:54
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You start from a false stand, defining what is "European". If you go to Europe in the past, and consider only Native Europeans, you will see there have lot of admixture on that continent with people coming from Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. And certainly, if you try to distinguish "Europeans" from "Amerindians" by genetics alone you will have more than a trouble, because Europeans and Central Asian populations (one of whose branch are the Amerindians) separated in a past which is not much distant (perhaps 15.000 to 30.000 years ago as much). That's why, determining the genetics of Amerindian origins is troublesome. So, if a European in the Americas mark finish or Chinese in a DNA test, perhaps what really is telling us is an Amerindian ancestor.
 
YOU REALLY ARE FULL OF IT!

Now with respect to the racist term "squaw", it was introduced in the English colonies about the time of the arrival in mass of Germans, people with a strong racism, unlike the early settlers. But that doesn't discount the fact that for many settlers, particularly for frontier men, an indigenous woman was a lot more worthy than an European woman. And indigenous women knew how to make cloths for the new environment, to make food with new plants, and knew the tricks of the trappers, and had the contacts to buy furs. Something a white woman lacked. And yes, discrimination exists but that didn't stop Pocahontas and many other indigenous women to get into the aristocracy of colonial North America.
 
You've been reading cowboy comic books again, haven't you?
 
SQUAW RACIST? I don't regard it as such, but if indigenous Americans do, then I withdraw it.

And with respect to Latin America, there mixed people reached high ranks as well. So, please get an update on your knowledge.
 
NOWHERE DID I SAY THAT LATIN AMERICANS WITH ADMIXTURE DIDN'T ACHIEVE HIGH RANK.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!Angry
 
Apartheid style colonization is part of the history of South Africa and Australia. Even New Zealand integrated its native better. And the history of your Tasmania is even worst, with the extermination of natives. No mixed breed there!
 
AGAIN, YOU'RE WRONG! TASMANIAN ABORIGINAL WOMEN MIXED WITH EUROPEANS, of course we have mixed breeds here. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHTAngry

I realise now that you have a very narrow focus when it comes to history. You may know about South America, but your overall knowledge of the rest of the world and its cultures could be written on the head of a pin.

You are indeed a very insecure person. Just because someone disagrees with your warped perceptions, it doesn't make them racist, and it doesn't denigrate Chileans as a whole. I doesn't really denigrate you, just your knowledge and your outlook.
 
DO SOME RESEARCH YOURSELF, and you'll see that the world isn't flat, and that modern science has disproved a lot of old theories



 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Mar 2014 at 16:50
Fellow. The term "squaw" is an insult in North America. The term "squaw man" applies to a white who married a Native American woman, as if the woman were a monster. I lived in Canada and I know it. The proper way to call a woman of indigenous ancestry is Native woman, or by the name of the tribe.
Now, the very existence of that term is a proof that marriage between Europeans and Amerindians in North America was something quite common. If you want to know more about it, read about the Fur Trade, for instance. And in Latin America was still more common because here most settlers were male, and they usually preferred to marry locals to ensure legal possession of lands, following the complicated colonial laws.

Now, in South Africa we know what happened. With respect to Australia, I have the information that natives have been a lot more discriminated that in New Zealand, for instance. And perhaps the reason lays in the fact that unlike Maoris, the Australian Aborigines have dark Skin, and theirs facial features are quite different from Europeans. Australia makes me remember India, which also is a place where Caucasians and Australoid met thousand of years ago, developing the cast system. And certainly some admixture exists, but the discrimination against Aborigines is something known abroad.








Edited by pinguin - 30 Mar 2014 at 16:53
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Mar 2014 at 02:14
pinguin:
 
You've lost the plot again.
 
What did or did not happen in Australia, Africa or New Zealand has absolutely nothing to do with European Links to American Indians.
 
I can't see much point in continuing this discussion, you simply don't understand.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2014 at 02:46
What you call "European" links is just nonsense. Starting for calling "European" to people that wandered all over Eurasia. Come on. Europe was still been peopling with central Asian immigrants in historical times! And many of those groups were Germanics and other Indoeuropeans. Native Europeans, like Basques, were flooded with foreigners comming from Asia and North Africa during milenia.


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Apr 2014 at 09:57
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

What you call "European" links is just nonsense. Starting for calling "European" to people that wandered all over Eurasia. Come on. Europe was still been peopling with central Asian immigrants in historical times! And many of those groups were Germanics and other Indoeuropeans. Native Europeans, like Basques, were flooded with foreigners comming from Asia and North Africa during milenia.


 
In this context, the word "European" is used to differentiate one group of people from another, such as Asian or African.
 
I know it isn't correct for time we're talking about, Europe as we know it didn't exist, but how else would you describe them?
 
All of the folks you've mentioned above, "incomers", gives all the more credence to the theory of "admixture" in prehistoric times. It's even accepted now that "modern" humans did in fact mix with Neanderthals and Denisovans, your ancestors.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 08:41

Back-migration of Yeniseian into Asia from Beringia

PLOS One DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091722

Linguistic Phylogenies Support Back-Migration from Beringia to Asia

Mark A. Sicoli, Gary Holton

Recent arguments connecting Na-Dene languages of North America with Yeniseian languages of Siberia have been used to assert proof for the origin of Native Americans in central or western Asia. We apply phylogenetic methods to test support for this hypothesis against an alternative hypothesis that Yeniseian represents a back-migration to Asia from a Beringian ancestral population. We coded a linguistic dataset of typological features and used neighbor-joining network algorithms and Bayesian model comparison based on Bayes factors to test the fit between the data and the linguistic phylogenies modeling two dispersal hypotheses. Our results support that a Dene-Yeniseian connection more likely represents radiation out of Beringia with back-migration into central Asia than a migration from central or western Asia to North America.
(From Dienekes Anthropology Blog)
 
This should dispel any thoughts to the contrary.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 09:27
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nothing controversial in the article above. It is known early Eurasian populations intermixed for a long time, before the groups that headed east crossed to the Americas. The only problematic point in there is calling "European" to people that probably wasn't even from Europe and whose descendants colonized Europe later. Come on, there are "European" looking people in Afghanistan, and there was even an "European" population in China in times as recent as 2.000 years ago.


I think you are right.  The article is just using terms of convenience.  There is nothing being granted to suggest that the people whom crossed into the Americas were actually European.  Actually by what I've read in the OP I specifically recall them saying that the skeletal remains which resembled Europeans were just a specific branch of females whom eventually made their way into many other areas after mixing with local populations.  It quite obviously means there was great genetic diversity existing between various groups of populations experiencing trade (humans genetics included) which were confined to the area between the Bering Strait and Europe.


Edited by literaryClarity - 16 May 2014 at 01:02
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 20:52
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Perhaps you should research what it means to be "Asian". Before mongoloids dominated in East Asia, for instance, in the region there were Australoids and Austronesian peoples. Besides, it is known that Euripids also lived in East Asia. So all those theories make little sense, because what matters is that the people that entered into the Americas came from Siberia, and still today theirs direct descendants are related to Siberians.


Despite the anthropological misconception toyomotor has you appear to have trouble with it as well.  As I understand it the misconception here entails freely interchanging the concepts of "presence" with "import" to the point of overshadowing one concept with the other.  The "presence" of Asians in Asia is one thing while their "import" is another.

Nowhere is it set in stone that Asians as we recognize them had to have been imported from Mongolia.  Mongolians' conquests during the reign of Kublai Khan did not make everyone in Asia an "Mongolian admixtured being".  The idea that Asians are Mongoloid or even allowed the descriptive "predominantly" Mongoloid is entirely moot since by no means were Mongolians ever genetically pure.  A quick look at their genetic profile shows that they are in fact heavily admixtured.  It is no different from being disillusioned from thinking Europeans are Caucasoid or merely even "predominantly" Caucasoid.

http://dna.xyvy.info/country-national-haplogroup-chart-dna/mongolia
http://dna.xyvy.info/country-national-haplogroup-chart-dna/georgia

If the truth were widely known about the origination points of the Y haplogroup O, heavily synonymous with Asian categories, it would be better to call Asians "The Trans Himalayoids" or "The Vietoids".  It is the same way Europeans are not simply Europoid but are as you've said and others noted, Indianoid, Iberianoid, Central Asianoid, Siberoid, Africanoid, Mediterraneanoid, etc.

Even when people fall into various categories we must be careful in differentiating "presence" from "import".  The "4 races of man" (Africanoid, Australoid, Europoid, Mongoloid) is outdated and seems to suggest that everything is from those 4 categories.  It doesn't illustrate anything more than what an arrtist's rendition of the world might be.  To match linguistic variation to that system is an extension of its nonsense.

Austronesian for example has the geographical term Austro in it but the "presence" of the language in Austronesian territory does not account for its actual "import" which actually occurred because of China and not from Austrailia.  It was genetically produced, in the linguistic sense, from the Yellow River area of China where the Yangshao culture had thrived alongside millet farming, matriarchy, pit dwellings, urn burials, painted pottery, etc.  In other words these are all accounted for not only in Austronesians but also in Tibeto-Burmans to whom they are intricately connected to.  For futher information I suggest reading Laurent Sagart's paper on "The Expansion of Setaria Famers in East Asia."  Note that the paper isn't about the expansion of Austrailians.

To take another example.  One might assume the language of the Americas to be American for the "Mongoloid" peoples whom had been natively living there.  Yet Mongoloid language hardly satisfies the overall genetic thesis of the actual language most accorded use in the Americas.  The use of American English has identification within Europe for the most part and earlier within India due to its further and further association to its importation. 

Having said that, I completely take your point on the identity of the original Native Americans being no small task to decipherment simply because their genetic variations are plenty and bear resemblances to a great deal of peoples of Eurasia.


Edited by literaryClarity - 15 May 2014 at 21:59
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2014 at 05:53
Well, you explained it very well and I agree with you. And, cosign.


A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2014 at 12:03
More recent studies have once again raised the subject of a European admixture in native Americans.
 
This article from Ancient Origins-
"In another finding, the DNA of a young boy found in eastern Siberia may hold the key to unravelling the mystery of where Native Americans originated.  The 24,000 year-old remains revealed two major surprises for anthropologists when they completed an analysis of his genome. The remains of the boy, aged 3 to 4 years old, were found buried at Mal’ta near Lake Baikal in eastern Siberia.  The team discovered that the boy’s DNA matched that of Western Europeans, showing that during the last Ice Age people from Europe reached much further east across Eurasia than previously believed. Incredulous at the results, they decided to test the DNA of an adult who died 17,000 years ago, found at a second Siberian grave site – they found the same markers of European origin.  The results indicated that Europeans occupied Siberia during the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 20,000 years ago. But that was not all. The results also showed that a quarter of the boy’s DNA matched that of living Native Americans.  Until now it was believed that Native Americans descended from East Asians in Siberia. Now it seems that they descended from a mixture of Western Europeans who had reached Siberia and the East Asian population. A European contribution to Native American ancestry could explain two longstanding mysteries about their origins. One is that many ancient Native American skulls, including that of the well-known Kennewick man, look very different from those of the present day population. Another is that one of the five mitochondrial DNA lineages found in Native Americans, the lineage known as X, also occurs in Europeans."
 
Improved methodology along with better technology are reversing many long held beliefs in the fields of Genetics and Anthropology to the extent that last years revelation are now old hat compared with yesterdays results.
 
And so, at this stage, my theory seems to be, at least in part, confirmed.Clap
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2014 at 04:43
Baloney. I bet that article was written by an European.

In any case, too bad if Native Americans had some European ancestry. The racist invaders of the Americas didn't care much about the common ancentry when hunted native Americans for fun.

For instance, Julius Popper, this European bastard from Romania. A rascal that tried to make a kingdom in the Land of Fire for the banana-republic of Romania! How I hate the criminal!!! Thanks good that dog was killed by another of his kind, who stabbed him to death. I hope he is burning in hell.

Please, keep Europeans in Europe!











Edited by pinguin - 21 May 2014 at 04:45
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2014 at 06:40
Quote
Baloney. I bet that article was written by an European.

In any case, too bad if Native Americans had some European ancestry. The racist invaders of the Americas didn't care much about the common ancentry when hunted native Americans for fun.

For instance, Julius Popper, this European bastard from Romania. A rascal that tried to make a kingdom in the Land of Fire for the banana-republic of Romania! How I hate the criminal!!! Thanks good that dog was killed by another of his kind, who stabbed him to death. I hope he is burning in hell.

Please, keep Europeans in Europe!
 
Could you be more specific?
 
 
The above will give you the details.
 
We musn't close our minds to recent developments, as I've said before, technology is helping researchers to make new findings almost weekly, findings that are reversing the previously thought facts.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 May 2014 at 15:08
Yes, it seems a good case for European ancestry in ancient Siberians, and later on Amerindians.
Something very sad, indeed, considering that when Europeans invaded the Americas, the cruel people of the Old continent didn't consider Indians to be humans! That's why Amerindians were wiped out of the Caribbean!! It was needed a Father Las Casas extraordinary defense of human rights just to stop the criminals from continuing genocide!

But in the Anglo-saxonian paradyse of the manifest destiny, even in times of fascist John Wayne the idea of killing Indians in mass was accepted.

This is a shocking news. Something as painful as when a Black activist find out he descend from the master of a plantation!

I would hope Native Americans descended from pure Siberians, but what the heck!





Edited by pinguin - 21 May 2014 at 15:11
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2014 at 02:19
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Yes, it seems a good case for European ancestry in ancient Siberians, and later on Amerindians.
Something very sad, indeed, considering that when Europeans invaded the Americas, the cruel people of the Old continent didn't consider Indians to be humans! That's why Amerindians were wiped out of the Caribbean!! It was needed a Father Las Casas extraordinary defense of human rights just to stop the criminals from continuing genocide!

But in the Anglo-saxonian paradyse of the manifest destiny, even in times of fascist John Wayne the idea of killing Indians in mass was accepted.

This is a shocking news. Something as painful as when a Black activist find out he descend from the master of a plantation!

I would hope Native Americans descended from pure Siberians, but what the heck!

 
 
But what's the problem esse?
 
If ancient Americans were genetically linked to Europeans, so what?
 
It doesn't change who you are now, and isn't it more important that the person you are is nothing to do with your skin colour etc?
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2014 at 02:27
It's not entirely the case that all Europeans saw indigenous populations as sub-human, or manifestly inferior. Some of Captain Cook's crew imagined Polynesians as akin to ancient Greeks, and produced sketches and diaries  that captured those thoughts. The Hudson's Bay Company in Canada had a long, long history of trading with, and cooperating with tribal societies on a fairly equal basis, in order to function in the fur trade.

In many cases it was aboriginal societies themselves that welcomed Europeans, for the purpose of helping defeat tribal opponents, making use of the difference in technological development at the time, or for the purpose of obtaining industrial products that they coveted, but could not produce themselves.

In fact it is somewhat disingenuous to equate European expansion with aboriginal decimation in every case, as in some cases futures improved remarkably for many, who were then freed from tribal warfare, slave taking, torture, brutality, and, in later years the cruel fact of infectious disease, and the sure death resulting from injury of any major sort.

The politically correct version of European expansion in the new world is not necessarily correct in historical terms.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2014 at 03:20
Indeed. I agree with you in general terms. Not all the conquest was the same. The way natives were treated in Quebec and afterwards in Canada was different to the rest of history of conquest. Also, it varies between regions and different historical times.

That's the problem with the conquest. It wasn't fully dark but wasn't fully bright either.
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2014 at 03:25
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
But what's the problem esse?
 
If ancient Americans were genetically linked to Europeans, so what?
 
It doesn't change who you are now, and isn't it more important that the person you are is nothing to do with your skin colour etc?
 
 


Sure, it doesn't change it. What it is important is to get the facts straight in historical records. Most of the invaders to the Americas came here to kill, to rob goods and lands, to enslave and to make money with the misfortunes of locals. We should make it very clear that the Americas were destroyed by the Europeans, converting its people in a marginal minority in the very continent they belonged.

Even today, you read books about history in the Americas, and they don't even mention the Amerindians! That must change, and it is changing already. In the same way we judge the Third Reich for its crimes, the colonial powers of Europe should be remembered as the cause of a infamy in the Americas.



A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4956
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 May 2014 at 08:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
But what's the problem esse?
 
If ancient Americans were genetically linked to Europeans, so what?
 
It doesn't change who you are now, and isn't it more important that the person you are is nothing to do with your skin colour etc?
 
 


Sure, it doesn't change it. What it is important is to get the facts straight in historical records. Most of the invaders to the Americas came here to kill, to rob goods and lands, to enslave and to make money with the misfortunes of locals. We should make it very clear that the Americas were destroyed by the Europeans, converting its people in a marginal minority in the very continent they belonged.

Even today, you read books about history in the Americas, and they don't even mention the Amerindians! That must change, and it is changing already. In the same way we judge the Third Reich for its crimes, the colonial powers of Europe should be remembered as the cause of a infamy in the Americas.

 
 
But this is exactly what is happening. Research is finding out more and more about our ancient history as each day goes by. As I keep telling you, facts are changing almost daily as the result of the research, so you shouldn't keep pulling the Amerocentric security blanket over your head.
 
Please, mate, get with the program.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 May 2014 at 02:26
Too bad, Toyomotor, you don't speak Spanish. Otherwise, you will realize how much Latin Americans hate Spaniards for conquer us. We still ask them to return the silver!!!
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.