|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 15, 2010 1:32:36 GMT -5
Here is a recent paper supporting the one-wave model of the settlement of the New World and opposing Neves González-José, R., Bortolini, M.C., Santos, F.R., Bonatto, S.L. 2008 “The peopling of America: craniofacial shape variation on a continental scale and its interpretation from an interdisciplinary view,” Am J Phys Anthropol. 137(2):175-87.
abstract: Twenty-two years ago, Greenberg, Turner and Zegura (Curr. Anthropol. 27,477-495, 1986) suggested a multidisciplinary model for the human settlement of the New World. Since their synthesis, several studies based mainly on partial evidence such as skull morphology and molecular genetics have presented competing, apparently mutually exclusive, settlement hypotheses. These contradictory views are represented by the genetic-based Single Wave or Out of Beringia models and the cranial morphology-based Two Components/Stocks model. Here, we present a geometric morphometric analysis of 576 late Pleistocene/early Holocene and modern skulls suggesting that the classical Paleoamerican and Mongoloid craniofacial patterns should be viewed as extremes of a continuous morphological variation. Our results also suggest that recent contact among Asian and American circumarctic populations took place during the Holocene. These results along with data from other fields are synthesized in a model for the settlement of the New World that considers, in an integrative and parsimonious way, evidence coming from genetics and physical anthropology. This model takes into account a founder population occupying Beringia during the last glaciation characterized by high craniofacial diversity, founder mtDNA and Y-chromosome lineages and some private autosomal alleles. After a Beringian population expansion, which could have occurred concomitant with their entry into America, more recent circumarctic gene flow would have enabled the dispersion of northeast Asian-derived characters and some particular genetic lineages from East Asia to America and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 16, 2010 6:20:19 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with the Olmecs . Here is a recent paper supporting the one-wave model of the settlement of the New World and opposing Neves González-José, R., Bortolini, M.C., Santos, F.R., Bonatto, S.L. 2008 “The peopling of America: craniofacial shape variation on a continental scale and its interpretation from an interdisciplinary view,” Am J Phys Anthropol. 137(2):175-87. abstract: Twenty-two years ago, Greenberg, Turner and Zegura (Curr. Anthropol. 27,477-495, 1986) suggested a multidisciplinary model for the human settlement of the New World. Since their synthesis, several studies based mainly on partial evidence such as skull morphology and molecular genetics have presented competing, apparently mutually exclusive, settlement hypotheses. These contradictory views are represented by the genetic-based Single Wave or Out of Beringia models and the cranial morphology-based Two Components/Stocks model. Here, we present a geometric morphometric analysis of 576 late Pleistocene/early Holocene and modern skulls suggesting that the classical Paleoamerican and Mongoloid craniofacial patterns should be viewed as extremes of a continuous morphological variation. Our results also suggest that recent contact among Asian and American circumarctic populations took place during the Holocene. These results along with data from other fields are synthesized in a model for the settlement of the New World that considers, in an integrative and parsimonious way, evidence coming from genetics and physical anthropology. This model takes into account a founder population occupying Beringia during the last glaciation characterized by high craniofacial diversity, founder mtDNA and Y-chromosome lineages and some private autosomal alleles. After a Beringian population expansion, which could have occurred concomitant with their entry into America, more recent circumarctic gene flow would have enabled the dispersion of northeast Asian-derived characters and some particular genetic lineages from East Asia to America and vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 16, 2010 10:10:15 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with the Olmecs precisely. Al-Takruri asked to get back to the initial topic of the thread which was Australo-Melanesian, which is the one vs two-wave settlement of the New World. BTW Luzia has nothing to do with the Olmecs either . Here is a recent paper supporting the one-wave model of the settlement of the New World and opposing Neves González-José, R., Bortolini, M.C., Santos, F.R., Bonatto, S.L. 2008 “The peopling of America: craniofacial shape variation on a continental scale and its interpretation from an interdisciplinary view,” Am J Phys Anthropol. 137(2):175-87. abstract: Twenty-two years ago, Greenberg, Turner and Zegura (Curr. Anthropol. 27,477-495, 1986) suggested a multidisciplinary model for the human settlement of the New World. Since their synthesis, several studies based mainly on partial evidence such as skull morphology and molecular genetics have presented competing, apparently mutually exclusive, settlement hypotheses. These contradictory views are represented by the genetic-based Single Wave or Out of Beringia models and the cranial morphology-based Two Components/Stocks model. Here, we present a geometric morphometric analysis of 576 late Pleistocene/early Holocene and modern skulls suggesting that the classical Paleoamerican and Mongoloid craniofacial patterns should be viewed as extremes of a continuous morphological variation. Our results also suggest that recent contact among Asian and American circumarctic populations took place during the Holocene. These results along with data from other fields are synthesized in a model for the settlement of the New World that considers, in an integrative and parsimonious way, evidence coming from genetics and physical anthropology. This model takes into account a founder population occupying Beringia during the last glaciation characterized by high craniofacial diversity, founder mtDNA and Y-chromosome lineages and some private autosomal alleles. After a Beringian population expansion, which could have occurred concomitant with their entry into America, more recent circumarctic gene flow would have enabled the dispersion of northeast Asian-derived characters and some particular genetic lineages from East Asia to America and vice versa. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 13:02:10 GMT -5
Yea, I'm not sure who ever proposed that either. From what I've read is that they propose a genealogical relationship between Paleoamericans, Australians, and Melanesian based on common descent, having been derived from an undifferentiated OOA population that obviously split off into these respective regions. It is argued that they (Paleoamericans and Amerindians) are both "Asian" in the geographical sense, but come from different source populations at different times.
From the 2010 AAPA..
Cranial diversity of human skeletal remains from Serra da Capivara, Northeastern Brazil: Implications for the origin of the Native Americans.
DANILO VICENSOTTO BERNARDO1, WALTER ALVES NEVES1 and NIEDE GUIDON2.
1Laboratorio de Estudos EvolutivosHumanos, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2Fundacao Museu do Homem Americano, Sao Raimundo Nonato, Brazil.
Your dental variation citation tends to lend credence to this. If they are simply extremes, why is one variant found when the other is absent, and when the newer variant becomes dominant, the latter becomes absent? The core of the 2-wave argument seems pretty sound. I'm still not sure what most of your critique has to do with this thread, but maybe you can enlighten us. As far as this morphology being found at or near Olmec sites, this is the exact question being explored. Why try to discredit it before it's been fully investigated? What's your angle here?
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 16, 2010 16:33:11 GMT -5
For part of this thread I was dealing with arguments for direct migration from Africa to the Olmec area circa 1200 BC on the basis of the work of the Polish researcher Wiercinski on crania in Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas. His method was outdated and critiqued as circular and ad-hoc years before the Tlatilco papers. al-Takruri suggested that I should drop this and deal with the topic you started. None of the researchers who spouse the two-wave model (Neves for example) have anything to say about the Olmecs. First, because there are NO Gulf Area Olmec crania; and Second because the Paleindians in question predate the Olmec civilization by thousands of years. A question about motivation (angle?) could be raised: "Why this continuous effort to try to link Africa to the Olmecs?" Since, no research (genetics or cranial) is going on concerning the Olmecs as descendants of the first wave Paleoindians is being done-- why should I be accused of trying to discredit it? I'll post on the two-wave in a separate post. I'm still not sure what most of your critique has to do with this thread, but maybe you can enlighten us. As far as this morphology being found at or near Olmec sites, this is the exact question being explored. Why try to discredit it before it's been fully investigated? What's your angle here?
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 16, 2010 16:52:48 GMT -5
Why should that be raised in a thread such as this? Isn't that just bringing the feud (baggage) between you and Dr. Winters into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with you guys' endless quarrels?
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 16, 2010 17:07:12 GMT -5
The main problem that the two-wave proponents have is the data that comes from genetics. The genetics support a one-wave. One way to accomodate the 2-wave is to remember that the mtDNA in the New World comes from two branches M and N. Here is a recent paper that deals with both the craniology and the genetics: Perez, S. I, et al. 2009 “Discrepancy between Cranial and DNA Data of Early Americans: Implications for American Peopling," PLoS ONE 4(5): e5746. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005746 Here is another paper that deals with BOTH craniology and genetics: Gonzalez-Jose, R, et al. 2008 “The Peopling of America: Craniofacial Shape Variation on a Continental Scale and its Interpretation From an Interdisciplinary View,” Am J Phys Anthropol 137:175–187 Before you bring them up, here is the relevant paper on the Pericu Indians with a partial retraction by Sylvia Gonzalez (the original author of the Pericu claims): R. Dalton. 2005. “Skeleton Keys,” Nature 433 (Feb. 3): 454-546. Yea, I'm not sure who ever proposed that either. From what I've read is that they propose a genealogical relationship between Paleoamericans, Australians, and Melanesian based on common descent, having been derived from an undifferentiated OOA population that obviously split off into these respective regions. It is argued that they (Paleoamericans and Amerindians) are both "Asian" in the geographical sense, but come from different source populations at different times. From the 2010 AAPA.. Cranial diversity of human skeletal remains from Serra da Capivara, Northeastern Brazil: Implications for the origin of the Native Americans. DANILO VICENSOTTO BERNARDO1, WALTER ALVES NEVES1 and NIEDE GUIDON2. 1Laboratorio de Estudos EvolutivosHumanos, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2Fundacao Museu do Homem Americano, Sao Raimundo Nonato, Brazil.
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 16, 2010 17:09:04 GMT -5
Why should that be raised in a thread such as this? Isn't that just bringing the feud (baggage) between you and Dr. Winters into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with you guys' endless quarrels? I was not the one who introduced Wiercinski into the thread. As you can see, I'm perfectly happy to stay with the one-wave vs two-wave paleoindian discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 18, 2010 19:41:57 GMT -5
This is Sundiata's thread not mine. I wasn't speaking as moderator. There's no way to turn off that 'GlobalModerator' label when I post but I was not dictating just personally pleading to stay on the topic of Olmecs as Australo-Melanesians. It looked like the thread was turning into another Winters vs de Montellano debate on African originating Olmecs. It's quite well and fine if the two of you want to go at. Go ahead and start a thread for it if you'd please. This has nothing to do with the Olmecs precisely. Al-Takruri asked to get back to the initial topic of the thread which was Australo-Melanesian, which is the one vs two-wave settlement of the New World. BTW Luzia has nothing to do with the Olmecs either .
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 18, 2010 20:02:49 GMT -5
Wiercinski entered the picture resulting from a request for Olmec craniometry. He lists Tlatilco data and it's a divided opinion, not a consensus, as to whether the selected Tlatilco skulls are Olmec or not, also if any of Wiercinski's other crania may be considered Australo-Melanesian. Craniometry is one in a multidisciplinary approach to the issue. Raw data on Olmec and A-M crania from any researcher is an aid. Whichever way PaleoAmericans got there, one wave or two wave it has been proposed they closely resemble Australo-Melanesians. It also seems the PAs didn't all either die off or breed out. These ideas being the givens, I thought Sundiata's broaching question well worth taking a look into, both the pro and con. Why should that be raised in a thread such as this? Isn't that just bringing the feud (baggage) between you and Dr. Winters into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with you guys' endless quarrels? I was not the one who introduced Wiercinski into the thread. As you can see, I'm perfectly happy to stay with the one-wave vs two-wave paleoindian discussion.
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 19, 2010 18:00:25 GMT -5
Could you please post a recent (10 years or so) quote from an Olmec scholar that the population of Tlatilco was composed of people coming from the Gulf Olmec area? This is NOT a given. Wiercinski entered the picture resulting from a request for Olmec craniometry. He lists Tlatilco data and it's a divided opinion, not a consensus, as to whether the selected Tlatilco skulls are Olmec or not, also if any of Wiercinski's other crania may be considered Australo-Melanesian. These ideas being the givens, I thought Sundiata's broaching question well worth taking a look into, both the pro and con.
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 20, 2010 11:53:55 GMT -5
Look the idea is to find raw data on Olmec crania not to confirm or disconfirm Wiercinski or Tlatilco as a periphery of Olmeca culturally or physically.
Once we have Olmec cranial raw data we can compare it to both Australo-Melanesians and PaleAmericans and do some non-polemical analysis of our own.
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 20, 2010 20:56:06 GMT -5
There are no skeletons in the Olmec Gulf area in the time period in question. The soil destroyed them. Arguments that are made are by analogy to the colossal Olmec heads which have their own problems. Look the idea is to find raw data on Olmec crania not to confirm or disconfirm Wiercinski or Tlatilco as a periphery of Olmeca culturally or physically. Once we have Olmec cranial raw data we can compare it to both Australo-Melanesians and PaleAmericans and do some non-polemical analysis of our own.
|
|