Negritic peoples

Originally posted by ArMaP

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

No there is no evidence that they returned. It isn't known what their destination was. they may have just been looking for a less populated location.

The earliest artifacts that have been found in the U.S. are at least 12,000 years old. There is a cave with artifacts on the Pacific coast in Sonoma County. It has been confirmed that they are that old. But IIRC, the Chinese say that their group came over much earlier, no later than 15,000 years ago.

Originally posted by BattleofBatoche
Abnormal means not normal! AB!
Aboriginal means not original! AB!

No, you can not make generalisations like that.

Abuse does not mean not use, for example.

See this

the Chinese say that their group came over much earlier, no later than 15,000 years ago.

thats complete rubbish then
there was no civilisation in china until 2500bce (4500 years ago)

Originally posted by Marduk

the Chinese say that their group came over much earlier, no later than 15,000 years ago.

thats complete rubbish then
there was no civilisation in china until 2500bce (4500 years ago)

You are supposing that you need a culture before you can migrate. Not true. We're not talking about civilizations, we're talking about people who migrated from China to North America, not civilization. There were people in China in the prehistoric era. It was these people who migrated to North America.

"The human record in China can be traced back at least 1.7 million years with the discovery in southwest China of fossils known as Yuanmou man, a closely related ancestor of modern man. Another protohuman toolmaker called Peking M an lived about 500,000 years ago in North China. By about 25,000 BC, also in the vicinity of Peking, a fully advanced human, sometimes referred to as Upper Cave man, hunted and fished and made shell and bone artifacts."

URL:
www.bergen.org...

we're talking about people who migrated from China to North America, not civilization. There were people in China in the prehistoric era. It was these people who migrated to North America.

strictly speaking they werent chinese
because chna didnt exist then
so they were asian
it has already been established that native americans are descended from five main mtdna groups
C and D who migrated there before the bering land bridge was cut off
and groups A,B and X who migrated there after it was cut off (post 10,000bce)

modern chinese have groups A and B in their genetic heritage

but none of these facts matches the claim made by the previous poster

and you gotta wonder if it was true how did they know how the hell they knew where they went anyway
did the newly arrived immigrants send a postcard home
"Dear Mum
have arrived at the new land to the east which is continent sized and full of food.
please make sure that you remember to pass on this story so someone with an unsubstantiated word of mouth source can mention it 17000 years from now to someone who will post it at an internet forum"
like
duh

Originally posted by Marduk

we're talking about people who migrated from China to North America, not civilization. There were people in China in the prehistoric era. It was these people who migrated to North America.

strictly speaking they werent chinese
because chna didnt exist then
so they were asian
it has already been established that native americans are descended from five main mtdna groups
C and D who migrated there before the bering land bridge was cut off
and groups A,B and X who migrated there after it was cut off (post 10,000bce)

modern chinese have groups A and B in their genetic heritage

but none of these facts matches the claim made by the previous poster

and you gotta wonder if it was true how did they know how the hell they knew where they went anyway
did the newly arrived immigrants send a postcard home
"Dear Mum
have arrived at the new land to the east which is continent sized and full of food.
please make sure that you remember to pass on this story so someone with an unsubstantiated word of mouth source can mention it 17000 years from now to someone who will post it at an internet forum"
like
duh

Check out the National Geographic web site, the part on how they have been tracking DNA around the globe and the migrations of humans. The DNA evidence clearly shows there were people from the area of modern China who immigrated to the North American continent.

Your "info" is vague, you list no sources and your arguments are specious. DNA doesn't lie, and it proves what most have suspected for at least 50 years: that people migrated from Asia across the Bering Strait and down into North America. The earlier migrations were the Inuit, who stayed in Alaska, and the South American indigenous tribes.

Originally posted by forestlady
No there is no evidence that they returned. It isn't known what their destination was. they may have just been looking for a less populated location.

Don't forget that there are records of voyages made in the early 1400's by Admiral Zheng He, who was making an exploratory voyage based on some earlier reports.

And the Inuit/Inupiat and their ancestors certainly knew the land was there for tens of thousands of years. Even today, on a good day, you can see to Siberia when there's little haze in the air (only 25 miles).

The earliest artifacts that have been found in the U.S. are at least 12,000 years old. There is a cave with artifacts on the Pacific coast in Sonoma County. It has been confirmed that they are that old. But IIRC, the Chinese say that their group came over much earlier, no later than 15,000 years ago.

I think here that these Chinese may include the Siberian/Mongol peoples. The shamanic traditions in the northwest have a lot in common with Siberian shamanism and are very ancient traditions. The teeth and blood groups of American Indians show a lot of similarities to the Chinese/northern Siberians.

In any case, the evidence for 12,000 years (early Clovis culture) is being pushed back with sites such as Mesa Verde in South America (and some along the Carolinas) indicating dates as early as 20,000 BC.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Byrd]

Now let's look at some other evidence: Genetics.


Easy Read

Early research with human mitochondrial DNA showed that genetic patterns cluster by geographical regions and that relationships between populations — evolutionary trees — can be established from these patterns. Some of this research shows genetic relations between Native Americans and Asians, supporting the theory of Asian origin.

Easy to View

Very interesting, dry, technical read:

On the Number of New World Founders: A Population Genetic Portrait of the Peopling of the Americas

and a critical review of the artical on-John Hawks weblog

Consider what archaeology and common sense alone tell us about the founding populations. They must have first arrived earlier than 12,000 years ago, possibly substantially earlier, but certainly not earlier than 50,000 years and probably much more recently. They may have already have been separated for a substantial time from contemporary Siberians, since the geographic extent of Beringia may have put a lot of distance between them. They must have been a relatively small population compared to contemporary Asians. This migration was not the voortrekkers crossing the Vaal; it was a relatively small population of hunter gatherers dispersing into a vast new continental land mass. This means that the population must have begun small and expanded greatly, probably exponentially. There may have been more than one dispersal, with more than one population source.

Keep it Real!

Thanks Casual One, that's exactly what I was trying to say, but you found some links, thanks!

Me thinks murduk must be blind.Olmecs is an Aztec term for their foreparents the olmecs.From the link that you provided it is quite clear that these people are of AFRICAN,MOORS,NUBIAN,jus plain o'le BLACK folk stock.Being they are said to be the earliest peoples of that continent then by definition they are the "indigenious" ie "native" to that land, which is called america hence the term "Native American".
Some of these collosal heads clearly dipict traits like "ulotrictous" ie (woolly) hair, which is typical black folks hair.Big o'le lips and big noses.
When asked about these feature's guess what Mr stirling is reported to have said and I quote" the reason their lips and noses are like that is because the tools they were using were blunt"
It must also be a first for any people to make collosal images of other than themselves for reason that based on records of most known culture's are for adoration or worshipping there own image and likeness, to then make images other than self and kind.
The iconography of the Mayans show a different phenotpye more typically
Endomorphic with the tell tale hooked noses more commonly seen amongst the sculptures of the late 16-18th century and on up till today of the East Indians
Another factor that ties the XI/she aka olmecs to african's is the wearing of the Jaguar skins something you see among the 12th dynasty Egyptians( known as the Golden Age amongst egyptologist) and something you would see in Hollywood movies of Africans.(remember the Tarzan movies)Although they would be of the leopard variety.There are many other cultral parellels just read "They came b4 come rob us by Ivan van sertima"
Some of the sculptures of the so called olmec period clearly show people with egg heads and the chinese or japanese features. This is seen in certain tribes of AMERICAN INDIANS who came by way of a chinese named "Hu Shen".Who is said to have arrived cira 425ad to the Americas and mixed in with the people they saw.Chinese also share another trait with so called america indians which is the Hollow hair which is why they have a limited amount of hair styles.
East indians are said to have come by way of the Bering Straits;These of course would be the Mayans who share many similarities with east indians of Angkor Wat.
Other that these three main gene pools I'am not aware of any other who would be Olmecs.Please clarify.
Oh yeah the one of a european looking individual but there are doubt's about it's authenticity..

well perhaps then you can explain to me why it is that every Olmec skeleton ever found is clearly asian
and not african
you seem to have done your research from pseudo sites
are you not going to link to your sources because after stuffing all that turkey we could all do with a good laugh
heres what wiki says

en.wikipedia.org...

Mainstream scholars remain unconvinced by these speculations. Others are more critical and regard the promotion of such unfounded theories as a form of ethnocentric racism at the expense of indigenous Americans. By an overwhelming margin the consensus view remains that the Olmec and their achievements are wholly indigenous to the region, founded entirely on a remarkable and ancient agriculture that was indigenous, and that they and neighbouring cultures, with whom they had contact, developed their own characters quite independently of any extra-hemispheric influences

9reason,

To save time Ill just cut and paste for ya-

In general, those who have insisted that the Olmec Heads have
"negroid" features have not taken the time to look at the area's
Native Americans and how their features correlate with the features
shown on these sculptures; neither have they given much thought
to the idea that the natives could have produced these artworks
themselves.

source

still better try this for your "light" reading: pdf NOT light reading material

to surf for anything Mesoamerican

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
replaced 'quote' tags with 'ex' for external material



[edit on 30/12/06 by masqua]

marduk have you actually read the links you are posting in the to back your somewhat convoluted espersions.
In response to the claim of Pseudo site's I actually referenced one source
had you read my reply carefully.(Ivan Van Setima "They came b4 columbus")
Then you make an even more ridiculus claim by stating and I quote;
"well perhaps then you can explain to me why it is that every Olmec skeleton ever found is clearly asian
Yet had you read from further up you would have read

Wiercinski claimed, based on his comparisons, that 13.5% of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5% of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were of West Africans.

One thing that is abundantly clear to me;the carvings of the collosal heads are all so called Negroid or African in representation.That there were other racial types there is no doubt.Simply because they to are shown in figurine representation.
The other web sites that you give also don't support your assertion's; which claim they say the Olmecs were ALIEN or not African. I quote

Many of the large stone head carvings have wide noses and large lips, which many have interpreted to suggest that the Olmec leaders or founders were African. This is not necessarily true though because many Asian cultures, including Cambodians and Philippinos, have the same facial characteristics, and so the origin of the Olmec remains a mystery

The one you say is supposed to be about Aliens is actually a statement that Z Sitchin is making pertaing to the age of the Olmec civilisation.No actual statment is made concerning any Aliens.
Again most of these so called scholars with the exception of those who have conducted solid scientific test to determin the D.N.A make up of the skeletol remains and other such test are given opinions based on what they have seen. I believe that there are those within this forum who could conduct an equally persausive set of arguements with the same information.

www.latinamericanstudies.org...

This is one link that leads to a whole load of images on olmecs and photos of peoples said to make up the Olmecs.You find people with tha Jaguar lip look.

marduk have you actually read the links you are posting in the to back your somewhat convoluted espersions.

yes but I thought it fair to let the less knowledgable people here know all the details and make up their own minds as to the veracity of each claim rather than go with your heavily agendised rubbish
Wiercinski has been completely debunked and you probably already know that yet I don't see you mentioning it anywhere
whats next C.A.Winters ?


there is no evidence of any pre columbian negro race in the americas
there never has been
and just because you have deluded yourself that this is not the case from the appearence of a few stone heads does not make it so....