|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 12, 2010 16:48:40 GMT -5
As usual, what we get is a melange of citations mixed with the poster's opinion- or self-references, i.e. "African Blacks migrated to China>"etc.
A refereed study of African tooth characteristics is :
Irish, J. D. 1997 “Characteristic high- and low-frequency dental traits in sub-Saharan African populations,” J Phys Anthropol 102:455-467
Keywords dental anthropology • tooth crown and root morphology • sub-Saharan African dental complex
Abstract In an earlier investigation (Irish [1993] Biological Affinities of Late Pleistocene Through Modern African Aboriginal Populations: The Dental Evidence [Ann Arbor: University Microfilms]), biological affinities of 32 sub-Saharan and North African dental samples were estimated using comparative analyses of 36 dental morphological traits. Marked dental homogeneity was revealed among samples within each of the two geographic regions, but significant interregional differences were noted. Assuming dental phenetic expression approximates or is an estimate of genetic variation, the present study of 976 sub-Saharan-affiliated Africans indicates they are not closely related to other world groups; they are characterized by numerous morphologically complex crown and root traits. Turner ([1984] Acta Anthropogenetica 8:23-78; [1985] in R Kirk and E Szathmary (eds.): Out of Asia: Peopling the Americas and the Pacific [Canberra: The Journal of Pacific History], pp. 31-78; [1990] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 82:295-318; [1992] Persp. Hum. Biol. 2/Archaeol. Oceania 27:120-127; [1992] in T Akaszawa, K Aoki, and T Kimura (eds.): The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia [Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha Publishing Co.], pp. 415-438) reports that Northeast Asian/New World sinodonts also have complex teeth relative to Europeans, Southeast Asian sundadonts, Australian/Tasmanians, and Melanesians. However, sinodonty is characterized by UI1 winging, UI1 shoveling, UI1 double shoveling, one-rooted UP1, UM1 enamel extension, M3 agenesis, and three-rooted LM1. Sub-Saharan peoples exhibit very low frequencies of these features. It is proposed that the collection of dental traits which best differentiate sub-Saharan Africans from other worldwide samples includes high frequencies of the Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, UM1 Carabelli's trait, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y-groove pattern, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, UM3 presence, and very low incidences of UI1 double shoveling and UM1 enamel extension. This suite of diagnostic traits is termed the sub-Saharan African dental complex.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 12, 2010 19:58:43 GMT -5
New Guinea is neither sundadont or sinodont. Australia, Micronesia, and Polynesia are sundadont. Australo-Melanesians are sundadont. Tentively, that fits the header hypothesis. I need to look into this further an additional piece of information: Haydenblit R. 1996. “Dental variation among four prehispanic Mexican populations,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 100 (2 ):225 - 246 From the traits examined, 27% presented frequencies consistent with Sinodont variation, while 73% of the traits showed similar incidence to Southeast Asian groups. Multivariately, the Mexican populations were found to fit an overall Sundadont classification. These results indicate that there is more dental morphological variation among American Indian populations than previously shown." Note that ALL Tlatilco (Wiercinski) skeletons were either sinodont or sundadont. Not ONE modern African population is sundadont or sinodont.
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 12, 2010 23:03:40 GMT -5
The excitement and attractiveness of Wiercinski’s papers on craniology of Tlatilco and Cerro las Mesas is due to the (erroneous) interpretation that Wiercinski provided evidence that there were African skeletons there and that these were Olmecs, i.e. support for either/or Ivan Van Sertima and Clyde Winters. However, there are a number of problems.
1. At the time of Wiercinski’s papers archaeologists thought that Tlatilco had a conquering Olmec population and a local substrate or a ruling class with Olmec ideas. Research over the years has led most scholars to the current view that Tlatilco had only local residents and no “Olmecs.”
2. Wiercinski’s Cerro de las Mesas population sample dated to over a thousand years after the proposed dates of African incursions.
3. Wiercinski’s methodology (Czekanowski’s Polish School), which had developed in isolation due WW II, was severely criticized by leading physical anthropologists as early as 1962. Wiercinski, A. 1962 “The Racial analysis of Human Populations in Relation to Their Ethnogenesis,” Current Anthropology 3(#1): 2-46.
4.Wiercinski, A. 1972 “Inter and intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, “ Proceedings 39th International Congress of Americanists Lima, 1970) vol. 1, pp. 231-252 Wiercinski identified 12 “races” at Tlatilco. None of them were pure “black”. One (Ainuid) was pure white; 4 (Armenoid, Laponoid, Mongoloid, and Pacific) were pure yellow; and the rest were arbitrarily defined “hybrid” races. These races were then manipulated by arbitrarily assigning one half of the value to each of the “pure” races composing the “hybrid” races. For example, on the basis of the 3.9% Armenoid-bushmanoid (HN) found at Tlatilco, Wiercinski states that there were 1.95 % Khoisan(N) skeletons at Tlatilco. Wiercinski adds the “Sudanese X” percentages from one half of the Dongolian (HX) 19.2%;Laponoid-equatorial (LX) 1.9%; and Pacific-Equatorial (ZX) 1.9%, i.e. 11.5% “Sudanese” skeletons + 1.95 % “Khoisan” skeletons to get the 13.5% that Van Sertima and Winters use in their claims. They never explain how these Khoisans smuggled themselves into the vessels coming from Egypt to the New world.
5. You can judge the accuracy of Wiercinski’s methodology from his paper Wiercinski, A. "The Analysis of Racial Structure of Early Dynastic Populations in Egypt." In Materialy i Prace Antropologiczne 72, by Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 3-48. Wroclaw: Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1965. Which is summarized in
Problema de las variaciones antroposcopicas de los antiguos egipcios [originalmente llamado "The Problem of Anthroposcopic Variations of Ancient Egyptians"] por Andrzej Wiercinski
ul. Spiska 4A m 55, Warszawa, Polonia.
Population Biology of Ancient Egyptians London-New York 1973, pags. 143-165. Recibido el 18 de Abril de 1969
Resumen
Este articulo muestra un análisis comparativo de las distribuciones de frecuencias de un grupo de caracteres craneoscopicos que discriminan entre las poblaciones Negroides y Caucasoides. Se investigaron varias series de cráneos Pre-dinásticos y de las primeras dinastías provenientes del Alto y Bajo Egipto. Parece que todos pertenecen al grupo Caucasoide y muestran una gran similitud con las series de la India. Sin embargo, fue detectada cierta cantidad de mezcla Negroide y Mongoloide pero esta no excede de 25%.
My (rough) translation
This article is a comparative anlaysis of the frequency distributions of a groups of cranial measurements that discriminate between negroid and Caucasoid populations. A number of series of Pre-Dynastic and the first dynasties from Lower and Upper Egypt. They all appear to be Caucasoid and are very similar to the Indian series. However, a certain amount of Negroid and Mongoloid was detected, but it did not exceed 25%
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 12, 2010 23:20:58 GMT -5
As usual, what we get is a melange of citations mixed with the poster's opinion- or self-references, i.e. "African Blacks migrated to China>"etc. A refereed study of African tooth characteristics is : Irish, J. D. 1997 “Characteristic high- and low-frequency dental traits in sub-Saharan African populations,” J Phys Anthropol 102:455-467 Keywords dental anthropology • tooth crown and root morphology • sub-Saharan African dental complex Abstract In an earlier investigation (Irish [1993] Biological Affinities of Late Pleistocene Through Modern African Aboriginal Populations: The Dental Evidence [Ann Arbor: University Microfilms]), biological affinities of 32 sub-Saharan and North African dental samples were estimated using comparative analyses of 36 dental morphological traits. Marked dental homogeneity was revealed among samples within each of the two geographic regions, but significant interregional differences were noted. Assuming dental phenetic expression approximates or is an estimate of genetic variation, the present study of 976 sub-Saharan-affiliated Africans indicates they are not closely related to other world groups; they are characterized by numerous morphologically complex crown and root traits. Turner ([1984] Acta Anthropogenetica 8:23-78; [1985] in R Kirk and E Szathmary (eds.): Out of Asia: Peopling the Americas and the Pacific [Canberra: The Journal of Pacific History], pp. 31-78; [1990] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 82:295-318; [1992] Persp. Hum. Biol. 2/Archaeol. Oceania 27:120-127; [1992] in T Akaszawa, K Aoki, and T Kimura (eds.): The Evolution and Dispersal of Modern Humans in Asia [Tokyo: Hokusen-Sha Publishing Co.], pp. 415-438) reports that Northeast Asian/New World sinodonts also have complex teeth relative to Europeans, Southeast Asian sundadonts, Australian/Tasmanians, and Melanesians. However, sinodonty is characterized by UI1 winging, UI1 shoveling, UI1 double shoveling, one-rooted UP1, UM1 enamel extension, M3 agenesis, and three-rooted LM1. Sub-Saharan peoples exhibit very low frequencies of these features.It is proposed that the collection of dental traits which best differentiate sub-Saharan Africans from other worldwide samples includes high frequencies of the Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, UM1 Carabelli's trait, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y-groove pattern, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, UM3 presence, and very low incidences of UI1 double shoveling and UM1 enamel extension. This suite of diagnostic traits is termed the sub-Saharan African dental complex. This does not negate the fact that Africans have traits found in ancient Americans, and the reality that this dental pattern is of Negro origin books.google.com/books?id=LOg4ZWQes68C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=sundadont africans&source=bl&ots=3UNxbhL_lk&sig=5rebjtYyWoo9BRXJPZA3Mi-ftL8&hl=en&ei=rk7DS9TANsyAnQf9rPDfCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sundadont%20africans&f=false
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 12, 2010 23:23:10 GMT -5
The excitement and attractiveness of Wiercinski’s papers on craniology of Tlatilco and Cerro las Mesas is due to the (erroneous) interpretation that Wiercinski provided evidence that there were African skeletons there and that these were Olmecs, i.e. support for either/or Ivan Van Sertima and Clyde Winters. However, there are a number of problems. 1. At the time of Wiercinski’s papers archaeologists thought that Tlatilco had a conquering Olmec population and a local substrate or a ruling class with Olmec ideas. Research over the years has led most scholars to the current view that Tlatilco had only local residents and no “Olmecs.” 2. Wiercinski’s Cerro de las Mesas population sample dated to over a thousand years after the proposed dates of African incursions. 3. Wiercinski’s methodology (Czekanowski’s Polish School), which had developed in isolation due WW II, was severely criticized by leading physical anthropologists as early as 1962. Wiercinski, A. 1962 “The Racial analysis of Human Populations in Relation to Their Ethnogenesis,” Current Anthropology 3(#1): 2-46. 4.Wiercinski, A. 1972 “Inter and intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, “ Proceedings 39th International Congress of Americanists Lima, 1970) vol. 1, pp. 231-252 Wiercinski identified 12 “races” at Tlatilco. None of them were pure “black”. One (Ainuid) was pure white; 4 (Armenoid, Laponoid, Mongoloid, and Pacific) were pure yellow; and the rest were arbitrarily defined “hybrid” races. These races were then manipulated by arbitrarily assigning one half of the value to each of the “pure” races composing the “hybrid” races. For example, on the basis of the 3.9% Armenoid-bushmanoid (HN) found at Tlatilco, Wiercinski states that there were 1.95 % Khoisan(N) skeletons at Tlatilco. Wiercinski adds the “Sudanese X” percentages from one half of the Dongolian (HX) 19.2%;Laponoid-equatorial (LX) 1.9%; and Pacific-Equatorial (ZX) 1.9%, i.e. 11.5% “Sudanese” skeletons + 1.95 % “Khoisan” skeletons to get the 13.5% that Van Sertima and Winters use in their claims. They never explain how these Khoisans smuggled themselves into the vessels coming from Egypt to the New world. 5. You can judge the accuracy of Wiercinski’s methodology from his paper Wiercinski, A. "The Analysis of Racial Structure of Early Dynastic Populations in Egypt." In Materialy i Prace Antropologiczne 72, by Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 3-48. Wroclaw: Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1965. Which is summarized in Problema de las variaciones antroposcopicas de los antiguos egipcios [originalmente llamado "The Problem of Anthroposcopic Variations of Ancient Egyptians"] por Andrzej Wiercinski ul. Spiska 4A m 55, Warszawa, Polonia. Population Biology of Ancient Egyptians London-New York 1973, pags. 143-165. Recibido el 18 de Abril de 1969 Resumen Este articulo muestra un análisis comparativo de las distribuciones de frecuencias de un grupo de caracteres craneoscopicos que discriminan entre las poblaciones Negroides y Caucasoides. Se investigaron varias series de cráneos Pre-dinásticos y de las primeras dinastías provenientes del Alto y Bajo Egipto. Parece que todos pertenecen al grupo Caucasoide y muestran una gran similitud con las series de la India. Sin embargo, fue detectada cierta cantidad de mezcla Negroide y Mongoloide pero esta no excede de 25%. My (rough) translation This article is a comparative anlaysis of the frequency distributions of a groups of cranial measurements that discriminate between negroid and Caucasoid populations. A number of series of Pre-Dynastic and the first dynasties from Lower and Upper Egypt. They all appear to be Caucasoid and are very similar to the Indian series. However, a certain amount of Negroid and Mongoloid was detected, but it did not exceed 25% This does nothing to deny the African character of these skeletons from Olmec sites.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 13, 2010 0:16:09 GMT -5
Wiercinski provides photos of Olmec artifacts that represent the racial types in his study SubPacific 38.5% Dongolan 19.2% Armenoid 3.9 These racial types are all representative of the Negro/Black variety
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 13, 2010 10:13:39 GMT -5
Talk about severely criticized anthropological methodology, what do you think this concept of a pure black you just introduced is? Dongola is not peopled by blacks? Interesting. This pure black aka true negro idea has no pure white aka true blanco correlate and is dimissed summarily as a ploy of negrophobes. Wiercinski predates Van Sertima. His studies were not made in support of Van Sertima's position that some Egypto-Sudanese made it to Olmeca or Winters proposition that all Olmecs were Mande -- which are two wholly different takes on the subject. Ignacio Bernal saw Tlatilco as an Olmec colony. Diehl seems sure enough that Tlatilco is archaeologically within the Olmec Horizon. Notre Dame's Snite Museum of art lists Tlatilco among its eleven Olmec culture sites. Are you saying that if finds aren't at the center of Olmeca then they can't be Olmec? One thing about Wiercinski that goes overlooked is that he makes no claims that the races he compares MesoAmerican crania to were actual migrants there. He takes no stance for MesoAmericans being in descent from any of his comparitive races just that the crania are similar. I'd be interested in quotes from a critique of Wiercinski by his contemporaries much more so than the current ones which are levelled against Wiercinski only as a proxy to disconfirm Van Sertima or Winters. Quotes from Wiercinski's study on Egyptian crania is a non-sequitor. Surely his menthodology is employed in his MesoAmerican papers, no? Anyway, Wiercinski's SubPacific race dominates all other similarities. I don't know quite what he means by subPacific. Who does? Are Australo-Melanesians SubPacifics? If so, and knowing about A-M at the origin of PaleoAmericans, it again supports the subject header of this thread which is supposed to be about Australo-Melanesians as Olmecs not Africans as Olmecs (the line the thread has devolved to). The excitement and attractiveness of Wiercinski’s papers on craniology of Tlatilco and Cerro las Mesas is due to the (erroneous) interpretation that Wiercinski provided evidence that there were African skeletons there and that these were Olmecs, i.e. support for either/or Ivan Van Sertima and Clyde Winters. However, there are a number of problems. 1. At the time of Wiercinski’s papers archaeologists thought that Tlatilco had a conquering Olmec population and a local substrate or a ruling class with Olmec ideas. Research over the years has led most scholars to the current view that Tlatilco had only local residents and no “Olmecs.” 2. Wiercinski’s Cerro de las Mesas population sample dated to over a thousand years after the proposed dates of African incursions. 3. Wiercinski’s methodology (Czekanowski’s Polish School), which had developed in isolation due WW II, was severely criticized by leading physical anthropologists as early as 1962. Wiercinski, A. 1962 “The Racial analysis of Human Populations in Relation to Their Ethnogenesis,” Current Anthropology 3(#1): 2-46. 4.Wiercinski, A. 1972 “Inter and intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, “ Proceedings 39th International Congress of Americanists Lima, 1970) vol. 1, pp. 231-252 Wiercinski identified 12 “races” at Tlatilco. None of them were pure “black”. One (Ainuid) was pure white; 4 (Armenoid, Laponoid, Mongoloid, and Pacific) were pure yellow; and the rest were arbitrarily defined “hybrid” races. These races were then manipulated by arbitrarily assigning one half of the value to each of the “pure” races composing the “hybrid” races. For example, on the basis of the 3.9% Armenoid-bushmanoid (HN) found at Tlatilco, Wiercinski states that there were 1.95 % Khoisan(N) skeletons at Tlatilco. Wiercinski adds the “Sudanese X” percentages from one half of the Dongolian (HX) 19.2%;Laponoid-equatorial (LX) 1.9%; and Pacific-Equatorial (ZX) 1.9%, i.e. 11.5% “Sudanese” skeletons + 1.95 % “Khoisan” skeletons to get the 13.5% that Van Sertima and Winters use in their claims. They never explain how these Khoisans smuggled themselves into the vessels coming from Egypt to the New world. 5. You can judge the accuracy of Wiercinski’s methodology from his paper Wiercinski, A. "The Analysis of Racial Structure of Early Dynastic Populations in Egypt." In Materialy i Prace Antropologiczne 72, by Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 3-48. Wroclaw: Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1965. Which is summarized in Problema de las variaciones antroposcopicas de los antiguos egipcios [originalmente llamado "The Problem of Anthroposcopic Variations of Ancient Egyptians"] por Andrzej Wiercinski ul. Spiska 4A m 55, Warszawa, Polonia. Population Biology of Ancient Egyptians London-New York 1973, pags. 143-165. Recibido el 18 de Abril de 1969 Resumen Este articulo muestra un análisis comparativo de las distribuciones de frecuencias de un grupo de caracteres craneoscopicos que discriminan entre las poblaciones Negroides y Caucasoides. Se investigaron varias series de cráneos Pre-dinásticos y de las primeras dinastías provenientes del Alto y Bajo Egipto. Parece que todos pertenecen al grupo Caucasoide y muestran una gran similitud con las series de la India. Sin embargo, fue detectada cierta cantidad de mezcla Negroide y Mongoloide pero esta no excede de 25%. My (rough) translation This article is a comparative anlaysis of the frequency distributions of a groups of cranial measurements that discriminate between negroid and Caucasoid populations. A number of series of Pre-Dynastic and the first dynasties from Lower and Upper Egypt. They all appear to be Caucasoid and are very similar to the Indian series. However, a certain amount of Negroid and Mongoloid was detected, but it did not exceed 25%
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 13, 2010 14:24:51 GMT -5
Talk about severely criticized anthropological methodology, what do you think this concept of a pure black you just introduced is? Dongola is not peopled by blacks? Interesting. This pure black aka true negro idea has no pure white aka true blanco correlate and is dimissed summarily as a ploy of negrophobes. The term "pure black" comes from Wiercinski's methodology. I could not put everything in one post. Wiercinski's method begins with a postulated 16 "pure initial races" (5 white, 7 yellow and 4 black). Any number of further races can be produced by combinations of these original 16. For example, Wiercinski "finds" 21 in Mesoamerica but only 12 of these in Tlatilco and 3 in Cerro las mesas. Not really relevant. If Van Sertima and Winters use Wiercinski as evidence for their proposals, then it is important to see if Wiercinski's stuff is correct. Bernal is very old. What is relevant to the Wiercinski question is whether there were actually Gulf Olmec persons at Tlatilco that produced the skeletons in question or whether these sites outside of the Gulf Olmec heartland share some of the iconographic and pottery characteristics but only have local inhabitants. This is a crucial question because if there are NO Gulf Olmec bodies there, then there is no support for the idea that actual African people were responsible for the development of Mesoamerican culture. There are no skeletons in the Gulf Olmec area because the soil characteristics are inappropriate for preservation. This just a part of a much broader debate among Olmec scholars concerning the concept of the Olmecs as the "mother culture" i.e. it all began in the Gulf Area and then diffused (could be by conquest, colonization-- which would involve actual migration of bodies; or persuasion, trade. or conversion-- which would not involve the actual migration of people from the Gulf Area). Or a competing paradigm "Sister Cultures" in which during the Formative (1400-300 B.C.) in Mesoamerica there there was a widely held common iconographic tradition and world view which was expressed in the Zapotec area (Monte Alban, San Jose Mogote), the Basin of Mexico (Tlapacoya, Tlatilco), Guerrero (Chacaltzinco, Teopantecuanitlan). For a number of years, the "Sister Cultures" view has been held by a great majority of Olmec scholars, Diehl and Coe still have a modified "Mother Culture" view. When Diehl refers to an "Olmec horizon" he is talking about a time period, NOT the presence of actual Gulf Olmec bodies. Same for Notre Dame's museum. Here are quotes from Niederberger, who has been the chief excavator of Tlatilco. Niederberger, C. 1996 “The Basin of Mexico: A Multimillenial Development Toward Cultural Complexity,” in Benson, E. P. and B. de la Fuente, eds. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, pp. 83-93 Washington: National Gallery of Art [/b] ... . Niederberger, C. 2000. “Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico toward 1200 B.C.,” in Clark, J.E. and M.E. Pye, eds. Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, 169-191 Washington: National Gallery of Art. [/b] I'll return to this in a new post since this is getting long and I have to go somewhere. [quote[Quotes from Wiercinski's study on Egyptian crania is a non-sequitor. Surely his menthodology is employed in his MesoAmerican papers, no? Anyway, Wiercinski's SubPacific race dominates all other similarities. I don't know quite what he means by subPacific. Who does? Are Australo-Melanesians SubPacifics? If so, and knowing about A-M at the origin of PaleoAmericans, it again supports the subject header of this thread which is supposed to be about Australo-Melanesians as Olmecs not Africans as Olmecs (the line the thread has devolved to).[/quote] I just put in the Egyptian results to point out how Wiercinski's methods can lead to results, that I presume would be odious to members ES-- and also odious to Mexicans when applied to Mesoamerica. The excitement and attractiveness of Wiercinski’s papers on craniology of Tlatilco and Cerro las Mesas is due to the (erroneous) interpretation that Wiercinski provided evidence that there were African skeletons there and that these were Olmecs, i.e. support for either/or Ivan Van Sertima and Clyde Winters. However, there are a number of problems. 1. At the time of Wiercinski’s papers archaeologists thought that Tlatilco had a conquering Olmec population and a local substrate or a ruling class with Olmec ideas. Research over the years has led most scholars to the current view that Tlatilco had only local residents and no “Olmecs.” 2. Wiercinski’s Cerro de las Mesas population sample dated to over a thousand years after the proposed dates of African incursions. 3. Wiercinski’s methodology (Czekanowski’s Polish School), which had developed in isolation due WW II, was severely criticized by leading physical anthropologists as early as 1962. Wiercinski, A. 1962 “The Racial analysis of Human Populations in Relation to Their Ethnogenesis,” Current Anthropology 3(#1): 2-46. 4.Wiercinski, A. 1972 “Inter and intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, “ Proceedings 39th International Congress of Americanists Lima, 1970) vol. 1, pp. 231-252 Wiercinski identified 12 “races” at Tlatilco. None of them were pure “black”. One (Ainuid) was pure white; 4 (Armenoid, Laponoid, Mongoloid, and Pacific) were pure yellow; and the rest were arbitrarily defined “hybrid” races. These races were then manipulated by arbitrarily assigning one half of the value to each of the “pure” races composing the “hybrid” races. For example, on the basis of the 3.9% Armenoid-bushmanoid (HN) found at Tlatilco, Wiercinski states that there were 1.95 % Khoisan(N) skeletons at Tlatilco. Wiercinski adds the “Sudanese X” percentages from one half of the Dongolian (HX) 19.2%;Laponoid-equatorial (LX) 1.9%; and Pacific-Equatorial (ZX) 1.9%, i.e. 11.5% “Sudanese” skeletons + 1.95 % “Khoisan” skeletons to get the 13.5% that Van Sertima and Winters use in their claims. They never explain how these Khoisans smuggled themselves into the vessels coming from Egypt to the New world. 5. You can judge the accuracy of Wiercinski’s methodology from his paper Wiercinski, A. "The Analysis of Racial Structure of Early Dynastic Populations in Egypt." In Materialy i Prace Antropologiczne 72, by Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 3-48. Wroclaw: Zaklad Antropologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1965. Which is summarized in Problema de las variaciones antroposcopicas de los antiguos egipcios [originalmente llamado "The Problem of Anthroposcopic Variations of Ancient Egyptians"] por Andrzej Wiercinski ul. Spiska 4A m 55, Warszawa, Polonia. Population Biology of Ancient Egyptians London-New York 1973, pags. 143-165. Recibido el 18 de Abril de 1969 Resumen Este articulo muestra un análisis comparativo de las distribuciones de frecuencias de un grupo de caracteres craneoscopicos que discriminan entre las poblaciones Negroides y Caucasoides. Se investigaron varias series de cráneos Pre-dinásticos y de las primeras dinastías provenientes del Alto y Bajo Egipto. Parece que todos pertenecen al grupo Caucasoide y muestran una gran similitud con las series de la India. Sin embargo, fue detectada cierta cantidad de mezcla Negroide y Mongoloide pero esta no excede de 25%. My (rough) translation This article is a comparative anlaysis of the frequency distributions of a groups of cranial measurements that discriminate between negroid and Caucasoid populations. A number of series of Pre-Dynastic and the first dynasties from Lower and Upper Egypt. They all appear to be Caucasoid and are very similar to the Indian series. However, a certain amount of Negroid and Mongoloid was detected, but it did not exceed 25% [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 13, 2010 19:33:34 GMT -5
Huh? I don't understand this statement at all. Maybe you can explain it to me and others. I just put in the Egyptian results to point out how Wiercinski's methods can lead to results, that I presume would be odious to members ES-- and also odious to Mexicans when applied to Mesoamerica.
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 13, 2010 19:58:26 GMT -5
Huh? I don't understand this statement at all. Maybe you can explain it to me and others. I just put in the Egyptian results to point out how Wiercinski's methods can lead to results, that I presume would be odious to members ES-- and also odious to Mexicans when applied to Mesoamerica. Since great preponderance of the threads and posts on these discussion board is centered on evidence and arguments that ancient Egyptians were black, it would seem that you would feel that something was wrong with a methodology that comes to the conclusion that both in Upper and Lower Egypt in predynastic times and for the first dynasties 75% of the skeletons were white Caucasians and the combined percentage of "Negroids" and "Mongoloids" did not exceed 25%.
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 14, 2010 2:22:32 GMT -5
Talk about Anyway, Wiercinski's SubPacific race dominates all other similarities. I don't know quite what he means by subPacific. Who does? Are Australo-Melanesians SubPacifics? If so, and knowing about A-M at the origin of PaleoAmericans, it again supports the subject header of this thread which is supposed to be about Australo-Melanesians as Olmecs not Africans as Olmecs (the line the thread has devolved to). SubPacific is one of the "races" that Wiercinski invented. It is supposed to be a 50/50 hybrid of two of the "pure original races" Lapponoid (L) a yellow race with "swarthy yellowish tones", a nasal index of 70 and a cephalic index of 80 and Pacific (Z) another "swarthy yellowish" race with a nasal index of 69 and a cephalic index of 77-82. You would have to go to the original description of the method to get exactly what these "pure original races" look like. In another paper, Wierzinski, AQ. 1971 "Afinidades Raciales de algunas poblaciones antiguas de Mexico," Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia 2: 123-143 he shows some images that correspond to these "races." He also says (p. 142) that Shang Chinese came to America and brought elements of the Pacific race -- so I presume that "Pacific" race looks like the Chinese. According to Wierzinski Fig. VI ( Olmec wrestler) and the standing figure in Fig. VII (the Alvarado stela) in Winters' post above represent the SubPacific (LZ) "race" I'm sorry, but I don't know the codes in this for posting images. Perhaps you can correct them or tell me how
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 14, 2010 13:57:53 GMT -5
You are operating from a prejudiced viewpoint. I am an individual. You don't know what I think about something until you inquire and I respond. I for one am quite tired by threads on blackness of ancient Egyptians (an over obvious given not in need of proofs) and blackness of this or that ancient population. What about you? This thread is about Olmecs as Australo-Melanesian which I take to mean they in large had physical affinities with PaleoAmericans. So far instead of pursuing the thread's topic you've gone off-topic with anti-Van Sertima irrelevancies. Have you nothing on-topic to contribute? Huh? I don't understand this statement at all. Maybe you can explain it to me and others. Since great preponderance of the threads and posts on these discussion board is centered on evidence and arguments that ancient Egyptians were black, it would seem that you would feel that something was wrong with a methodology that comes to the conclusion that both in Upper and Lower Egypt in predynastic times and for the first dynasties 75% of the skeletons were white Caucasians and the combined percentage of "Negroids" and "Mongoloids" did not exceed 25%.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 14, 2010 14:06:50 GMT -5
The easiest way to insert images is to place the tags [/img] around the url of the image. The button will do this for you. If the image is on your harddrive upload it to ImageShack then follow above instructions or use the atttachment feature. I'm sorry, but I don't know the codes in this for posting images. Perhaps you can correct them or tell me how
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 14, 2010 16:28:26 GMT -5
You are operating from a prejudiced viewpoint. What about you? This thread is about Olmecs as Australo-Melanesian which I take to mean they in large had physical affinities with PaleoAmericans. So far instead of pursuing the thread's topic you've gone off-topic with anti-Van Sertima irrelevancies. Have you nothing on-topic to contribute? Fine with me. I only got into it because Wiercinski's stuff was brought into the discussion, and he has nothing to do with Luzia type claims. BTW are you still interested in the 1962 critiques that invalidated his method? The discussion surrounding the idea that paleoamericans had morphology that resembles modern Australo-Melanesian, by those who actually do research, has nothing to do with Olmecs. That extension is one brought in by Afrocentrics. Walter Neves is the chief scholar involved and he has a number of papers. The basic argument is that, particularly in South America, paleoindians have a cranial morphology that differs from most modern Native Americans. Neves proposes two alternative explanations here: Neves, W. A. and M. Hubbe. 2005. "Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World," PNAS 102(51): 18309-18314. quote: Hoever, it is crucial to understand that Neves as well as other proponents of the 2-wave migration do not propose a direct migration to the New World from Australia or MelanesiaQuoting from the same paper continuing the paragraph Others disagree with Neves and argue that only a single migration took place and that the range in morphology at the time of the migration was great enough to include both Neves's paleoindian population and the modern Native American. Any one of these 3 versions would explain the "Olmec" features without any direct migration to the New World from Africa, Australia, or Melanesia.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 14, 2010 18:11:14 GMT -5
I hope you can handle this matter without resort to the "Afrocentrics" whipping boy. No agendas, just the facts at hand.
|
|