Negritic peoples

During the International Congress of American Anthropologists held in Bacelona, Spain in 1964, a French anthropologist pointed out that all that was missing to prove a definite presence of Negritic Blacks in the Americas before Columbus was Negroid skeletons to add to the already found Negroid featured terracottas. Later on February of 1975 skeletons of Negroid people dating to the 1200's were found at a precolumbian grave in the Virgin Islands. Andrei Wierzinski, the Polish crainologist also concluded based on the study of skeletons found in Mexico, that a good portion of the skulls were that of Negritic Blacks,

Based on the many finds for a Black African Negroid presence in ancient Mexico, some of the most enthusiastic proponents of a pre-columbian Black African presence in Mexico are Mexican professionals. They conclude that Africans must have established early important trading centers on the coasts along Vera Cuz, from which Middle America's first civiliztion grew.

In retrospect, ancient Africans did visit the Americas from as early as about 100,000 B.C. where they stayed for tens of thousands of years. By 30,000 B.C., to about 15,000 B.C., a massive migration from the Sahara towards the Indian Ocean and the Pacific in the East occurred from the Sahara. Blacks also migrated Westward across the Atlantic Ocean towards the Americas during that period until the very eve of Columbus' first journey to the Americas.

From the link provided by AMANNAMEDQUEST.

I think a crainologist would know. Since Africa is credited as the birthplace of modern homo sapiens. It stands to reason they did effectively migrate through-out the world.

Too many Hollywood versions of Cleopatra and Jesus.

The ancient druids considered writing things down an abuse of power, as did Socrates. It's likely the lack of written word denotes something other than cultural inferiority. Not to mention much of the oral history has recently been enslaved, murdered and otherwise oppressed.





[edit on 12-12-2006 by clearwater]

Originally posted by clearwater

During the International Congress of American Anthropologists held in Bacelona, Spain in 1964, a French anthropologist pointed out that all that was missing to prove a definite presence of Negritic Blacks in the Americas before Columbus was Negroid skeletons to add to the already found Negroid featured terracottas. Later on February of 1975 skeletons of Negroid people dating to the 1200's were found at a precolumbian grave in the Virgin Islands. Andrei Wierzinski, the Polish crainologist also concluded based on the study of skeletons found in Mexico, that a good portion of the skulls were that of Negritic Blacks,

Based on the many finds for a Black African Negroid presence in ancient Mexico, some of the most enthusiastic proponents of a pre-columbian Black African presence in Mexico are Mexican professionals. They conclude that Africans must have established early important trading centers on the coasts along Vera Cuz, from which Middle America's first civiliztion grew.

In retrospect, ancient Africans did visit the Americas from as early as about 100,000 B.C. where they stayed for tens of thousands of years. By 30,000 B.C., to about 15,000 B.C., a massive migration from the Sahara towards the Indian Ocean and the Pacific in the East occurred from the Sahara. Blacks also migrated Westward across the Atlantic Ocean towards the Americas during that period until the very eve of Columbus' first journey to the Americas.

From the link provided by AMANNAMEDQUEST.

I think a crainologist would know.

And why don't other craniologists, anthropologists, historians, and researchers, know??

Since Africa is credited as the birthplace of modern homo sapiens. It stands to reason they did effectively migrate through-out the world.

Indeed. Everyone is the result of an exodus from africa. But thats not the same as saying 'people that look like our usual concept of 'blacks' spread across the world, and developed all the cultures in all those regions'.

The ancient druids considered writing things down an abuse of power, as did Socrates. It's likely the lack of written word denotes something other than cultural inferiority.

?
What then?

People don't like writting because its often seen as a form of magic. And as much as the druids didn't write things down, other cultures did. Besides, what does the druids have to do with it? Caesar contacted the druids, and didn't mention that they were african or egyptian or nubian or anything like that. Indeed, I've never heard of a study that had skeletons from the classical era in europe that were 'negritic' or anything like.

Really, this is just as bogus as the ideas that the aryans spread out of central asia into the whole world, and that they're responsible for europe, egypt, india, persia, etc etc.

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Negritic peoples are among the first and oldest races to conquer earth. There is more than enough evidence of their journeys of ancient earth. So why isn't it accepted as mainstream or taught in history books? Racism maybe? They were advanced and seafaring, and had set up trade routes. From north and South America to India and Australia they have colonized. Will they ever be credited with being an advanced people who have discovered America? They are very ancient in age and may have had a very advanced global culture at one time.

Read the works of Godfrey Higgins, Albert Churchward and Gerald Massey.

They'll vouch for the fact that very dark skinned people were the original Master Builders and founders of Civilization.

They had access to ancient records not attainable to the profane.




Regards

But more recent discoveries challenge the Clovis story. In 1996, archeologists in southern Chile found weapons and tools dating back 12,500 years. In Brazil, they found some of the oldest human remains in the Americas, among them a skeleton—named Luzia—that is more than 11,000 years old.

Luzia did not look like American Indians. Instead, her facial features matched most closely with the native Aborigines in Australia. These people date back to about 60,000 years and were themselves descended from the first humans who probably originated in Africa.

Here is a link news.nationalgeographic.com...

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Here is a link news.nationalgeographic.com...

If that's the skull of the individual, it's not African in origin... and very clearly so. The nasal opening is the wrong shape, and so are the bones of the eyes. Can't say a thing about the teeth. I suspect that they're making the call based on the teeth.

Also, the article didn't say she was from Africa but rather from the group of people who came out of Australia. Australian aborigines ARE dark skinned, but their skulls are very different from a "Negritic" skull.

And to return to the topic at hand, they are one of several groups of immigrants who came to the New World. They are not the only people to hit the shore.

Originally posted by Marduk
nope, that honour falls to the australian aborigines who even when they were askled to write their history down by missionaries didn't make any sense at all
40,000 years they'd been there
nothing to show for it

thats like going to school for your whole lifetime and not getting any qualifications
hehe

...really? Or maybe the Aborigines method of recording their history is much like within my people, the NZ Maori...our history - pre-Missionary - was recorded within chants, within songs and within Haka (performances)...it was recorded within our artwork and in our carvings...much of what is called 'tuturu'...or 'old skool' for want of a better term...the more esoteric knowledges and histories within my people still is recorded in such manner...as its simply deemed far too 'tapu' (sacred) to be written down, translated and open for all and sundry to be privy to.

...its understandable to us...maybe if Missionaries actually learnt the methods of a cultures recording instead of stipulating that culture conform to their accepted methods of historical records they might have actually noticed there was in fact a wealth of information for them to benefit from...

Personally i wouldnt be suprized at all if some Aborigines reached the americas but it takes more than a few people to create a lasting culture. The conditions need to be right aswell. Same applies for the polynesians.

Personally i wouldnt be suprized at all if some Aborigines reached the americas

Its well known that they did
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, as I alluded to, I tend to think that the Asians were here long before anyone else was.. Now, we can all argue about Columbus and yada,yada, but we all know that he wasn't the one who really discovered America. There were already people here when he got here. The most that we can credit Columbus with is circumnavigating the globe..

My Chinese friend told me that there is alot of oral history in China that tells about the Asians crossing the Bering Strait and going south to what is now the U.S. These were probably the first people to arrive in America.

Originally posted by forestlady
My Chinese friend told me that there is alot of oral history in China that tells about the Asians crossing the Bering Strait and going south to what is now the U.S. These were probably the first people to arrive in America.

And is there any reference of their return or if they reached their destination?

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
This is a olmec magician? What exactly race is this person?

[edit on 12-12-2006 by AMANNAMEDQUEST]

Looks to be central asian to me...


I personally believe the Phonecians were here centuries before Columbus but that and $4 will bet me a cup of coffee at starbucks.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by RWPBR]

Originally posted by Marduk

Personally i wouldnt be suprized at all if some Aborigines reached the americas

Its well known that they did
en.wikipedia.org...

Great read and thanks for the informative link but WIKIpedia by its very nature is hardly the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Not that your views dont have merit. It seems the farther south you go in the Americas the higher the level of culture among the native peoples so one could infer a different ethnic/cultural base originating from the south.

[edit on 14-12-2006 by RWPBR]

Originally posted by RWPBR
I personally believe the Phonecians were here centuries before Columbus but that and $4 will bet me a cup of coffee at starbucks.

Not very likely, in my opinion.

If they went to the Americas, the most probable place to start their voyages would be where I live, in Portugal, and we have many evidences of their presence here but nothing that shows that they made voyages to the other side of the Atlantic.

@ ForestLady

I suspect that you are probably right. Considering that Native Americans have asiatic features, I think it is rather ridiculous to argue that any other ethnicity was here before the asians. There have been artifacts from several different cultures dug up in the Americas...I am not sure what the oldest is,but I think that it's a safe bet that regardless of the origination of the oldest artifact found in the America's, at least to date, it would be hard to argue against the asiatic discovery o the America's.

RWPBR

Great read and thanks for the informative link but WIKIpedia by its very nature is hardly the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Not that your views dont have merit. It seems the farther south you go in the Americas the higher the level of culture among the native peoples so one could infer a different ethnic/cultural base originating from the south.

I know what you mean about wikipedia. I used to feel that way but for the last 12 months or so I haven't seen anything that is wrong on its pages. I guess they raised the standard a littel as some of it used to be truly laughable

The elaborate ritual costumes shown in the paintings exhibit similarity to those used by Australian Aborigines as well as those used by the Fuegians, the natives of Tierra del Fuego. According to some researchers, such as Walter Neves of the University of Sao Paulo, the Fuegians (who were reduced to only one woman as of 2004) are likely to be the product of intermixing between American Aborigines and American Indians, and therefore the last surviving descendants of the Aboriginal settlers.

seekerofbull
I think it is rather ridiculous to argue that any other ethnicity was here before the asians.

On the basis of that evidence, it has been speculated that those hypothetical American Aborigines came originally from Oceania or southeast Asia, and spread through much of South America before being nearly exterminated by the Siberian migrants coming from the north

en.wikipedia.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Replaced quotes with external source tags



[edit on 15/12/06 by masqua]

[edit on 15/12/06 by masqua]

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Marduk]

Too many Hollywood versions of Cleopatra and Jesus.

Alexander the Great --- Macadonian ----- Greek -----Fair Haired (blonde)

Conquered the known world including Egypt. Had four major generals who split his empire upon his death. Ptolomey Dynasty of Egyptain Pharoes comes from Alexander's Fair Skinned, fair haired generals who had strict polocy of only marrying Greek or Macedonian. Cleopatra was a Ptolomey not a nubian.
Too many political correctness and rap videos make people think cleopatra was black. Sorry she was white with a sun tan. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Large numbers of semetic peoples had fair hair, blonde / red / & light brown along with green & blue eyes. Mary Magdalane is believed to have red hair. Jesus could have easily been light!

Abnormal means not normal! AB!
Aboriginal means not original! AB!
Aborigine means non original! AB! not!
Kennewick man, Blonde blue eyed Mandan tribe of North Dakota, the 3000 year old mummies along the silk road who have blonde & red hair, etc, etc.
The evidence completely contradicts the accepted position but then all you do in university & school is regurgitate someone elses work & theories and spend your days refuting any contradictory evidence.

The evidence completely contradicts the accepted position but then all you do in university & school is regurgitate someone elses work & theories and spend your days refuting any contradictory evidence.

what evidence is this
so far you've just posted your opinion
you dont seem to be aware that all the instances you just cited actually support the current position

Originally posted by MardukAccording to some researchers, such as Walter Neves of the University of Sao Paulo, the Fuegians (who were reduced to only one woman as of 2004) are likely to be the product of intermixing between American Aborigines and American Indians

THe only thing thats going to reliably show that is genetic evidence. If we're talking about two populations mixing, genetics should show it.

the 3000 year old mummies along the silk road who have blonde & red hair, etc, etc.

Pashtun's have red hair. They're not normally thought of as 'white' people.
The truth is, human populations have a lot of variety. Human hair, skin, and eye colour is dictated by melanin. Different concentrations give different colours. So it shouldn't be surprising that there are people in different parts of the world that have similar features, but aren't specially related.

Pashtun's have red hair. They're not normally thought of as 'white' people.

in this case they turned out to be Celts
this page lays it all out quite clearly with a minimum of sensationalism
www.meshrep.com...
they didn't just migrate westwards contrary to popular belief
the expanded in all feasible directions

Originally posted by Marduk
in this case they turned out to be Celts

Items of weaved material, identical to Celtic cloth, definitively proved the Indo-European origins of the Tocharians,

The tocharians are an indo-european people, yes. I've never heard of any genetic study that actually related them specifically to the celts. Nor that the Pashtuns are Tocharians.

www.khaleejtimes.com.../todaysfeatures/2005/April/todaysfeatures_April37.xml§ion=todaysfeatures
China has only allowed the genetic studies in the last few years, with a 2004 study carried out by Jilin University also finding that the mummies� DNA had Europoid genes, further proving that the earliest settlers of Western China were not East Asians.

Which is different from saying 'they were celts'. All it really shows is that features can occur over a great variety.

Her tall stature, high nose, and red hair indicate that she was of European descent.

None of those things mean that a person is european. The tocharians were probably the result of the original expansion of the proto-indo-european peoples and language, but there is no reason to think that those proto-indoeuropeans were 'european', anymore than to think they were iranian or indian.

They certainly weren't like modern chinese or mongols, yes.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by Nygdan]