Post by africurious on Dec 27, 2017 14:48:26 GMT -5
Africurious said: [Hmm, ok I kinda get your reasoning but that wouldn’t make pre-columbians black in the sense that black nativists and others who claim a “black” presence mean it. They mean it in the racial sense i.e. the “black race”, “negro”, etc. Today, we don’t call any group descended from pre-Colombians black so why would we refer to these ancient people as black]
For me "Black" is just a descriptive term and it have very little to do with anyone's ancestors or feature descendants for that matter.
So you are using black to describe what exactly as it refers to pre-Columbian natives? And it’s still unclear who these “blacks” are supposed to be. All you’ve mentioned are “Brazilian finds” and then the virgin island skeletons.
Africurious said: [Also if by this quote “Certain phenotype combined with heavily melaninated skin found all over the world from Africa to Asia” you mean that more tropically adapted skeletal features go together with dark skin that could be called black that’s incorrect. The skeleton can have features common in tropical areas but the skin still be light and vice versa.]
But why auto ruleout the possibility given similar ecological conditions in tropical Asia and Africa where the two phenotypes overlapped why disregard the eyewitness account of early Euros.
[Also, you seem to have assumed a black/near black complexion for the bodies based on anthros saying the skeletons are those of Africans. Since skeleton and skin are independent of each other, one can’t assume their skin color if as you say they aren’t necessarily Africans.]
In this case the author of the study is assuming African traits I think he sight dental characteristics ,the problem is the body it cannot be properly dated, although the artifact could.
In science one goes by what is likely, not what is possible. Many things are possible but only few are likely. Your claim as well as it’s opposite are equally likely, making neither one sufficient. You should also note that in Asia and Africa the two phenotypes very often don’t overlap. Example, the San people have cranio-facial features that are “negroid”/more common in tropics but have extremely light skin. They wouldn’t be called black based on skin tone alone. This scenario is reversed in most Somalis. In Asia, Indians tend to have cranio-facial features akin to temperate and cold climate peoples even if their skin is black. And these are just a few examples. So again a claim can’t be made for skin color based on skeleton alone. Such a notion isn’t even claimed by any modern anthropologist. The genes controlling skin color and skeletal features aren’t the same and are independent of each other.
I don’t disregard the accounts of early euros. But their descriptions don’t imply the idea you’ve put forth. Having very dark skin is quite within Native American variation. And again where’re the genes from this “black” population?