Date limit set on first Americans

[Diarmid Lo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm

Date limit set on first Americans

By Paul Rincon

BBC Science

A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans reached
America at least 30,000 years ago - around the same time that
people were colonising Europe.

The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly
contested by academics.

On one side of the argument are researchers who claim America
was first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward the end of
the last Ice Age. On the other are those who propose a much
earlier date for colonisation of the continent - possibly
around 30,000-40,000 years ago.

The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory,
proposing that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000
years ago.

They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y chromosome
known as haplotype 10.

This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native American
men and is thought to have reached the continent first.
Haplotype 10 is also found in Asia, confirming that the
earliest Americans came from there.

The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred
on haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of
people into America.

Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10
which is not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after
people settled in America, making it useless for assigning a
date to the first migrations.

But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is
found in Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared before
the first Americans split from their Asian kin.

Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates -
errors occur - and the time taken for a single male
generation, the scientists were able to calculate when M242
originated. They arrived at a maximum date of 18,000 years ago
for its appearance.

This means the first Americans were still living in Asia when
M242 appeared and could only have begun their migration
eastwards after this date.

"I would say that they entered [America] within the last
15,000 years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and author
who contributed to the latest study.

In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of
human occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte
Verde in Chile.

They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from
fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there
were used by humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation of
these remains has been questioned by several experts.

The debate over the biological origins of the first Americans
has wide-ranging political and racial implications.

In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of many
scientific collections to claimants.

Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early Americans
are sufficiently different from their descendents to be exempt
from Nagpra.

For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State
known as Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking
European due to its long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull
shape. More recent American populations tend to have short,
broad skulls.

Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this
way because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin
around 35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.

"[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early skulls,"
Dr Wells told BBC News Online.

He said a later migration into America from East Asia
6,000-10,000 years ago associated with the spread of Y
chromosome haplotype 5 could have been responsible for the
Asiatic appearance of many present-day Native Americans.

But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more
ancient American populations carrying unidentified Y
chromosome haplotypes could have been swamped by later
migrations, resulting in their genetic legacy being erased.

"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to
deal with what's extant."

http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/

[Philip Dei]

On 22 Jul 2003 07:09:15 -0700, diarmidlogan@yahoo.com (Diarmid
Logan) wrote:

>They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from
>fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found there
>were used by humans to butcher meat. But the interpretation
>of these remains has been questioned by several experts.

There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared in
Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis culture.

>For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State
>known as Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking
>European due to its long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull
>shape. More recent American populations tend to have short,
>broad skulls.
>
>Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this
>way because Europeans and early Americans had a common origin
>around 35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.

Native americans did not have a common origins in south
central asia. They have many points of origin from melanesians
that came up through Japan in the south to diplaced WEA/ME
that came up from the south west to siberia. To mongols that
came from siberia proper . . . . .

>But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more
>ancient American populations carrying unidentified Y
>chromosome haplotypes could have been swamped by later
>migrations, resulting in their genetic legacy being erased.
>
>"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have to
>deal with what's extant."

Then he should make a trip to Japan.

[Gisele Hor]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:56:36 -0500, Philip Deitiker
<pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

>On 22 Jul 2003 07:09:15 -0700, diarmidlogan@yahoo.com
>(Diarmid Logan) wrote:
>
>
>>They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from
>>fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found
>>there were used by humans to butcher meat. But the
>>interpretation of these remains has been questioned by
>>several experts.
>
>There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
>in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
>Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
>protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis culture.
>
>>For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State
>>known as Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking
>>European due to its long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull
>>shape. More recent American populations tend to have short,
>>broad skulls.

Here we go again. What is not made clear in this article is
that the majority of the Native American Y chromsomes are
phylogenetically closer to those of Europeans than to Asians.
Quoting Lell et al.
(2002):

"The major Native American founding lineage, haplogroup M3,
accounted for 66% of male Y chromosomes and was defined by the
biallelic markers M89, M9, M45, and M3. ...The second major
group of Native American Y chromosomes, haplogroup M45,
accounted for about one-quarter of male lineages."

We're already up to about 91%...

"Among the remaining 5% of Native American Y chromosomes is
haplogroup RPS4Y-T, found in North America."

RPS4Y-T is the 'Asian' haplotype.

By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?
That the same haplotypes, which currently appear to be quite
rare in Eastern Asia, were introduced twice - once along with
traits similar to those of Europeans to account for the
appearance of the Kennewick Man and once with traits similar
to those of Asians? This is not what Wells suggested, though:

"He said a later migration into America from East Asia
6,000-10,000 years ago associated with the spread of Y
chromosome haplotype 5 could have been responsible for the
Asiatic appearance of many present-day Native Americans."

RPS4Y is haplotype 5.

If mtDNAs are maternally inherited and Y chromosomes -
paternally inherited, it should be possible to superimpose one
phylogenetic chart upon the other. Using the well-sampled
Europeans as a reference point:

Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 - precedes the majority of the
European haplotypes as do mtDNA sequences which have 12705T
and 16223T. The predominant Native American haplogroup (A)
fits in this category. In the New World, Y chromosome mutation
M3 is thought to have occurred on this M45 haplotype and been
carried back to Asia. This agrees well with the mtDNA
haplogroup A sequences which could have been carried at the
same time.

The Asian/Native American mtDNA haplogroup which is roughly
parallel, phylogenetically, to the majority of the haplogroups
of Europe is 'B'. This could correspond with the Y chromsome
haplotypes which have variants M89 M9 M45 M173 since this
haplotype was considered to be a Native American founding
haplotype by Lell and it is found at relatively high frequency
in Polynesia. In Europe, Polynesia and the New World, at
least, Y chromosome M89 M9 M45 M173 could correspond with
mtDNA haplogroups which have 12705C & 16223C and which are
called haplogroup cluster R.

Y chromsome RPS4Y-T could correspond with the mtDNA
macro-haplogroup M sequences in the Americas
(haplogroups C & D).

In summary, Native American mtDNA sequences can be separated
into 3 groups: 1) the ones which preceded the majority of the
European, phylogenetically, 2) the ones which are considered
to be roughly parallel and 3) the ones closer to those of
Asians. If you divide the relevant Y chromosome haplotypes
into the same three groups, correlations similar to the ones I
have described above could be found. But, *I* shouldn't have
to be doing this, researchers in the field should be and I
should be quoting them.

I really just wanted to point out, though, how the low
frequency of the 'Asian' y haplotype is inconsistent with
Wells explanation for the physical description of Native
Americans he provided.

Gisele

[Mib529]

Yeah, and moon dust proves a young earth. You don't date
something by the YOUNGEST date; you date something by the
OLDEST date.

Anyway, the idea of telling the age of a mutation eerily
mirrors neo-Lamarckism, in which the organism "remembered" its
ancestral forms and was thus able to go through them more
quickly, adding something at the end. Seems there are still
those who would Haeckel biology.

As for the skull shape, here's a second clue for you: Most
Indians are dolichocephalic, and the cephalic index was
discredited a century ago. Quit trying to find differences
between ancient remains and Orientals, as if all brown-skinned
people look alike.

Reminds me of Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced
Europeans", all in a single pueblo 700 years ago. His data,
when viewed from a scientific lens, disproves any claim of
pre-Indian Caucasians; after all, if these Caucasians were
here 700 years ago, in the middle of the Mojave no less, then
a cline exists - while the entire "pre-Indian Caucasian" claim
rests on the lack of a cline.

Some net.loon with no knowledge of biology wrote in message
news:<6d220a72.0307220609.7cb47f89@posting.google.com>...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3086777.stm
>
>
> Date limit set on first Americans
>
> By Paul Rincon
>
> BBC Science
>
> A new genetic study deals a blow to claims that humans
> reached America at least 30,000 years ago - around the same
> time that people were colonising Europe.
>
> The subject of when humans first arrived in America is hotly
> contested by academics.
>
> On one side of the argument are researchers who claim
> America was first populated around 13,000 years ago, toward
> the end of the last Ice Age. On the other are those who
> propose a much earlier date for colonisation of the
> continent - possibly around 30,000-40,000 years ago.
>
> The authors of the latest study reject the latter theory,
> proposing that humans entered America no earlier than 18,000
> years ago.
>
> They looked at mutations on the form of the human Y
> chromosome known as haplotype 10.
>
> This is one of only two haplotypes carried by Native
> American men and is thought to have reached the continent
> first. Haplotype 10 is also found in Asia, confirming that
> the earliest Americans came from there.
>
> The scientists knew that determining when mutations occurred
> on haplotype 10 might reveal a date for the first entry of
> people into America.
>
> Native Americans carry a mutation called M3 on haplotype 10
> which is not found in Asia. This suggests it appeared after
> people settled in America, making it useless for assigning a
> date to the first migrations.
>
> But a mutation known as M242 looked more promising. M242 is
> found in Asia and America, suggesting that it appeared
> before the first Americans split from their Asian kin.
>
> Knowing the rate at which DNA on the Y chromosome mutates -
> errors occur - and the time taken for a single male
> generation, the scientists were able to calculate when M242
> originated. They arrived at a maximum date of 18,000 years
> ago for its appearance.
>
> This means the first Americans were still living in Asia
> when M242 appeared and could only have begun their migration
> eastwards after this date.
>
> "I would say that they entered [America] within the last
> 15,000 years," said Dr Spencer Wells, a geneticist and
> author who contributed to the latest study.
>
> In 1997, a US-Chilean team uncovered apparent evidence of
> human occupation in 33,000-year-old sediment layers at Monte
> Verde in Chile.
>
> They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from
> fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found
> there were used by humans to butcher meat. But the
> interpretation of these remains has been questioned by
> several experts.
>
> The debate over the biological origins of the first
> Americans has wide-ranging political and racial
> implications.
>
> In the US, the Native American Graves Protection and
> Repatriation Act (Nagpra) has resulted in the handover of
> many scientific collections to claimants.
>
> Some archaeologists argue that the remains of early
> Americans are sufficiently different from their descendents
> to be exempt from Nagpra.
>
> For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State
> known as Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking
> European due to its long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull
> shape. More recent American populations tend to have short,
> broad skulls.
>
> Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked this
> way because Europeans and early Americans had a common
> origin around 35,000-40,000 years ago in south-central Asia.
>
> "[Dolichocephaly] is a general feature of very early
> skulls," Dr Wells told BBC News Online.
>
> He said a later migration into America from East Asia
> 6,000-10,000 years ago associated with the spread of Y
> chromosome haplotype 5 could have been responsible for the
> Asiatic appearance of many present-day Native Americans.
>
> But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more
> ancient American populations carrying unidentified Y
> chromosome haplotypes could have been swamped by later
> migrations, resulting in their genetic legacy being erased.
>
> "We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have
> to deal with what's extant."
>
>
> http://diarmidlogan.blogspot.com/

[Deowll]

"Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:esjqhvs3vho5c8es44tq0uf0e17tlpthc6@4ax.com...
> On 22 Jul 2003 07:09:15 -0700, diarmidlogan@yahoo.com
> (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
>
>
> >They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from
> >fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found
> >there were used by humans to butcher meat. But the
> >interpretation of these remains has been questioned by
> >several experts.
>
> There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it disappeared
> in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new world 15 kya.
> Sounds like a displacement. What happens in Japan 15 kya,
> protoJomon arrives. What does that look like, clovis
> culture.
>
I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most
artifacts other than the points are sort of generic. I've
never seen something I could call a Clovis point from Asia.
Unless you know something I don't I think the points developed
in North America. I don't question a linkage between North
Easter Asian culture and Native American culture.

I would bet that the expansion took place before the
displacement or at least the people displaced aren't the ones
that moved when the group expanded. In most cases the ones
dispaced die with few if any descendents while some may be
absorbed. Large bodies of people did move around after the
mesolithic but before that is seems to have been one small
group moving then budding off another group at the expense of
the neighbors and so on.

> >For example, a 9,300-year-old skull from Washington State
> >known as Kennewick Man has been interpreted as looking
> >European due to its long, narrow (dolichocephalic) skull
> >shape. More recent American populations tend to have short,
> >broad skulls.
> >
> >Dr Wells said individuals such as Kennewick Man looked
> >this way because Europeans and early Americans had a
> >common origin around 35,000-40,000 years ago in
> >south-central Asia.
>
> Native americans did not have a common origins in south
> central asia. They have many points of origin from
> melanesians that came up through Japan in the south to
> diplaced WEA/ME that came up from the south west to siberia.
> To mongols that came from siberia proper . . . . .
>
> >But Dr Wells acknowledged the possibility that even more
> >ancient American populations carrying unidentified Y
> >chromosome haplotypes could have been swamped by later
> >migrations, resulting in their genetic legacy being erased.
> >
> >"We can't rule that out," he said, "but in science we have
> >to deal with what's extant."
>
Genes not found in a living populations aren't found in a
living population and taking a trip won't help. Genes that
once were but have no living owners are gone. Sometime you
might get lucky and find a few but as you have pointed out
unless they are frozen somewhere in the tundra the older ones
are most likely gone.

> Then he should make a trip to Japan.

[Mib529]

> By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being suggested?

I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit that
folks have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up the
myth about white gods. They manage to get away with it by
lumping Indians with Orientals. So I give them the following
Clue cards:

Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in
Central America are brachycephalic. Clue #2: The cephalic
index was discredited a century ago. It's as useful as
phrenology.

[Tedd]

"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SLCTa.14745$nL2.12273@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> news:esjqhvs3vho5c8es44tq0uf0e17tlpthc6@4ax.com...
> > On 22 Jul 2003 07:09:15 -0700, diarmidlogan@yahoo.com
> > (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >They claimed that burned wood found at the site came from
> > >fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles found
> > >there were used by humans to butcher meat. But the
> > >interpretation of these remains has been questioned by
> > >several experts.
> >
> > There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it
> > disappeared in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the new
> > world 15 kya. Sounds like a displacement. What happens in
> > Japan 15 kya, protoJomon arrives. What does that look
> > like, clovis culture.
> >
> I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most
> artifacts other than the points are sort of generic. I've
> never seen something I could call a Clovis point from Asia.
> Unless you know something I don't I think the points
> developed in North America. I don't question a linkage
> between North Easter Asian culture and Native American
> culture.
>

this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is
currently (as far as my undergraduate knowledge knows) no
supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or
clovis culture and asian contexts. there are multiple
relationships as evident in the record between alaska and
eastern asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a
clear relationship to link alaska and clovis of the lower 48.
dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be
pre-clovis are still disputed due to carbon contamination and
lack of cultural layer association, those that are established
are shown to be younger than clovis. in both cases neither
group of dated sites contain assemblages that show any
cultural relation to clovis.

for reference see:
C. Vance Haynes 1982 Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002

tedd.

[Duncan Cra]

man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
news:<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com>...
> > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> > suggested?
>
> I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
> that folks have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up
> the myth about white gods. They manage to get away with it
> by lumping Indians with Orientals. So I give them the
> following Clue cards:

I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white
gods in places they had never been?... like Hawaii and the
Marquesas.

Duncan

>
> Clue #1: Most Indians ARE dolichocephalic. Only a few in
> Central America are brachycephalic. Clue #2: The cephalic
> index was discredited a century ago. It's as useful as
> phrenology.

[Mib529]

dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan Craig) wrote in message
news:<a37f0d1c.0307231857.3325df7f@posting.google.com>...
> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
> news:<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com>...
> > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> > > suggested?
> >
> > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
> > that folks have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made up
> > the myth about white gods. They manage to get away with it
> > by lumping Indians with Orientals. So I give them the
> > following Clue cards:
>
> I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white
> gods in places they had never been?... like Hawaii and the
> Marquesas.

I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to
rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god
when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and reeks
of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't stop folks like
Barry Fell from selling books.

In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
anthropology has a reputation for racism.

[Tedd]

"MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com...

> In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> anthropology has a reputation for racism.

anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of
Racial Scientism debates of the 19th century, the
monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and
then carried through by british socio-anthropology. all pre
20th and 21st century, long before threads like this. lets
keep it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what
lead to the impressions of derogatory comments (and flaming).

dig deeper,

tedd.

[Eric Steve]

On 23 Jul 2003 23:05:16 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
(MIB529) wrote:

>dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan Craig) wrote in message
>news:<a37f0d1c.0307231857.3325df7f@posting.google.com>...
>> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
>> news:<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com>...
>> > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
>> > > suggested?
>> >
>> > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
>> > that folks have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made
>> > up the myth about white gods. They manage to get away
>> > with it by lumping Indians with Orientals. So I give them
>> > the following Clue cards:
>>
>> I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of white
>> gods in places they had never been?... like Hawaii and the
>> Marquesas.
>
>I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to
>rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god
>when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and
>reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't stop
>folks like Barry Fell from selling books.

A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping.
Do you actually have any evidence that the underlying story
is not true?

>In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
>anthropology has a reputation for racism.

Eric Stevens

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:09:56 -0600, "Tedd"
<Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:

>this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is
>currently (as far as my undergraduate knowledge knows) no
>supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or
>clovis culture and asian contexts. there are multiple
>relationships as evident in the record between alaska and
>eastern asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a
>clear relationship to link alaska and clovis of the lower 48.
>dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to be
>pre-clovis are still disputed due to carbon contamination and
>lack of cultural layer association, those that are
>established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both
>cases neither group of dated sites contain assemblages that
>show any cultural relation to clovis.
>
>for reference see:
>C. Vance Haynes 1982

Irrelevantly old.

>Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002

There are researchers that say that, but I frankly disagree
with them. There is a current divide in this study some come
for cultural exchange and carry over from asia, some come
against it. I think in the next 5 years the archaeology from
Japan will become so convincing that no-one would reasonably
there was no cultural carry over from asia.

[Diarmid Lo]

"MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com

> I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to
> rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god
> when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and
> reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't stop
> folks like Barry Fell from selling books.

> In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> anthropology has a reputation for racism.

Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
researchers does not mean that these scientists were racists.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

[Diarmid Lo]

man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
news:<4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com>...
> dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan Craig) wrote in message
> news:<a37f0d1c.0307231857.3325df7f@posting.google.com>...
> > man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
> > news:<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com>...
> > > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> > > > suggested?
> > >
> > > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same shit
> > > that folks have "suggested" ever since the Spanish made
> > > up the myth about white gods. They manage to get away
> > > with it by lumping Indians with Orientals. So I give
> > > them the following Clue cards:
> >
> > I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of
> > white gods in places they had never been?... like Hawaii
> > and the Marquesas.
>
> I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells to
> rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a god
> when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and
> reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't stop
> folks like Barry Fell from selling books.
>
> In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> anthropology has a reputation for racism.

So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists who
participated in this research racists?

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

>A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping. Do
>you actually have any evidence that the underlying story is
>not true?

You mean like Inger has been doing?

[Philip Dei]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
<diarmidlogan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
>> anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>
>Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
>researchers does not mean that these scientists were racists.

"White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
racist, I think.

You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran into
islands, as any people would and then after further sailing
reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come from this
place or that place in the mexico central valley, its a little
bit far fetched for the lack of information from other places.
In terms of mexico the carribe indians traveled between the
outer islands and mexico, They may have seen columbus and
traveled to mexico informing the aztec leaders that powerful
white men are coming.

The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint of
something and they are on their high alters proclaiming it as
evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of contact
over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is on their
high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude,
they don't talk about the potency of the basque, legendary
sea peoples, nor do they talk about contribution from
africa or canary islands. They are simply focused on
Egypt, Italy, Spain, Ireland and _Sweden_. This is why you
can say they are racist.

[Bob Lancas]

"Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<WqLTa.199$hP.110239@news.uswest.net>...
> "MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com...
>
> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>
> anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of
> Racial Scientism debates of the 19th century, the
> monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century, and
> then carried through by british socio-anthropology. all pre
> 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this. lets
> keep it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are
> what lead to the impressions of derogatory comments (and
> flaming).
>
> dig deeper,
>
> tedd.

Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.

I've followed MIB's posts on the subject of anthropology (as
well as a number of other topics) over the years. I do not
always agree with him. In some cases I strongly agree with
him, and in others I strongly disagree with him. MIB is more
knowledgable on the subject of Anthropology than I am, but
that is not the point.

The point is, MIB is a Native American who is well aware of
the reputation anthropologists have in the Native community.
If he says Anthropology has a reputation for racism, it would
be foolish to ignore him out of hand.

You could dismiss MIB as just a crazy injun, or YOU could dig
a little deeper. You could find out whether or not
anthropology has such a reputation, and you could find out
why. You could try reading books written by actual Native
Americans (yes, some of us can write!). For example, Vine
DeLoria has a hilarious description of anthropologists in one
of his books. It's been over a decade since I read it, so I
forget which one. I think it was _Custer Died for Your Sins_
or something like that. Or, you could try talking to some real
live injuns yourself. I know there are plenty around you neck
of the woods. I've talked to some not far from where you live
who could tell you what the general reputation of
anthropologists is, and could also tell you the names of
anthropologists who respect, and are respected by, the local
Native community.

Just putting my two cents in, I've known some very highly
educated Indians who cannot stand anthropologists.

I could also give you examples past the year 1900 of racism by
anthropologists. One of my favorites is the antrhopologist who
decided one of my ancestors was a mythical figure, even though
she was a quite well known historical person. Little things
like that tend to piss one off after a while.

Okay, let's try a little thought experiment. Anthropology is,
or at least aspires to be, a science. (Sorry, but a physical
scientist like myself can't help but find a few flaws in the
rigor of Anthropology.) All fields of science are the sum of
human *interpretations* of empirical data. Humans are flawed,
therefore interpretations are flawed. Spmetimes the data are
flawed. Anthropology is a science (so to speak) which is very
sensitive to any ethnic biases. (Being that the study of
humans is especially sensitive to any biases --positive or
negative-- by the humans interpreting the data.)

There are only two logical possibilites:

(1) There are no racist anthropologists

or

(2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the
racism, conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.

The first possibility requires perfection in a large group of
humans, so it can safely be ruled out.

That leaves one, and ONLY one, logical possiblity. The field
of Anthropology is tainted by racism.

I'm not talking about the 18th or 19th century, I'm talking
about the 21st century. The bad reputation of Anthropology in
the 21st century Native American community is due to recent
and current anthropologists.

As I've said, I don't agree with MIB all the time. In this
case he's right on target. It would take a little bit of
digging to find out why he hit the bullseye here, but I'll
give you a two word clue to help start your search:
Kenniwick Man.

-Robert G. Lancaster, Ph.D Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

[Eric Steve]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
<pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping.
>>Do you actually have any evidence that the underlying story
>>is not true?
>
>You mean like Inger has been doing?

Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
(deliberately snipped by you) that:

"I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a
god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived, and
reeks of white man's burden."

I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that
story but I certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on
the basis a statement such as Duncan's. I was hoping he could
produce a better argument.

Eric Stevens

[Duncan Cra]

"Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<vFLTa.201$hP.111436@news.uswest.net>...
> "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:SLCTa.14745$nL2.12273@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:esjqhvs3vho5c8es44tq0uf0e17tlpthc6@4ax.com...
> > > On 22 Jul 2003 07:09:15 -0700, diarmidlogan@yahoo.com
> > > (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >They claimed that burned wood found at the site came
> > > >from fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles
> > > >found there were used by humans to butcher meat. But
> > > >the interpretation of these remains has been questioned
> > > >by several experts.
> > >
> > > There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it
> > > disappeared in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the
> > > new world 15 kya. Sounds like a displacement. What
> > > happens in Japan 15 kya, protoJomon arrives. What does
> > > that look like, clovis culture.
> > >
> > I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most
> > artifacts other than the points are sort of generic. I've
> > never seen something I could call a Clovis point from
> > Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the points
> > developed in North America. I don't question a linkage
> > between North Easter Asian culture and Native American
> > culture.
> >
>
> this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is
> currently (as far as my undergraduate knowledge knows) no
> supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or
> clovis culture and asian contexts. there are multiple
> relationships as evident in the record between alaska and
> eastern asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce
> a clear relationship to link alaska and clovis of the lower
> 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which are claimed to
> be pre-clovis are still disputed due to carbon contamination
> and lack of cultural layer association, those that are
> established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both
> cases neither group of dated sites contain assemblages that
> show any cultural relation to clovis.
>
> for reference see:
> C. Vance Haynes 1982 Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
>
> tedd.

Has anything been done to compare clovis points with Monte
Verde points?

Duncan

[Mib529]

"Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<vFLTa.201$hP.111436@news.uswest.net>...
> "deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:SLCTa.14745$nL2.12273@fe05.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Philip Deitiker" <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:esjqhvs3vho5c8es44tq0uf0e17tlpthc6@4ax.com...
> > > On 22 Jul 2003 07:09:15 -0700, diarmidlogan@yahoo.com
> > > (Diarmid Logan) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >They claimed that burned wood found at the site came
> > > >from fires at hunting camps and that fractured pebbles
> > > >found there were used by humans to butcher meat. But
> > > >the interpretation of these remains has been questioned
> > > >by several experts.
> > >
> > > There's that pebble culture again. But oddly it
> > > disappeared in Japan 16 kya and it is appearing in the
> > > new world 15 kya. Sounds like a displacement. What
> > > happens in Japan 15 kya, protoJomon arrives. What does
> > > that look like, clovis culture.
> > >
> > I'm not sure I know what Clovis culture looks like. Most
> > artifacts other than the points are sort of generic. I've
> > never seen something I could call a Clovis point from
> > Asia. Unless you know something I don't I think the points
> > developed in North America. I don't question a linkage
> > between North Easter Asian culture and Native American
> > culture.
> >
>
> this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is
> currently (as far as my undergraduate knowledge knows) no
> supportive evidence for linkage between clovis technology or
> clovis culture and asian contexts. there are multiple
> relationships as evident in the record between alaska and
> eastern asia

...which therefore explains the lower date for DNA evidence.
The BBC article was written by idiots. If anthropologists
weren't so insistant on the rantings of a 17th-century
missionary, perhaps we could get something done.

I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter Siberia
in an ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait was
decided upon before we even knew there was a time when the
world was a lot cooler.

[Michael Cl]

"Duncan Craig" <dunkers@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:a37f0d1c.0307240846.41cae679@posting.google.com...
> "Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<vFLTa.201$hP.111436@news.uswest.net>... [..]
> > this opens up a whole other topic of debate; there is
> > currently (as far as my
undergraduate
> > knowledge knows) no supportive evidence for linkage
> > between clovis technology or
clovis culture and
> > asian contexts. there are multiple relationships as
> > evident in the record between
alaska and eastern
> > asia, but as of yet no one has been able to produce a
> > clear relationship to link
alaska and clovis
> > of the lower 48. dates retrieved from alaskan sites which
> > are claimed to be
pre-clovis are still
> > disputed due to carbon contamination and lack of cultural
> > layer association,
those that are
> > established are shown to be younger than clovis. in both
> > cases neither group of
dated sites contain
> > assemblages that show any cultural relation to clovis.
> >
> > for reference see:
> > C. Vance Haynes 1982 Roosevelt, Douglas and Brown 2002
> >
> > tedd.
>
> Has anything been done to compare clovis points with Monte
> Verde points?

Some references:

Clovis revisited: New Perspectives on Paleoindian Adaptations
from Blackwater Draw, New Mexico (Philadelphia: The University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1999) Anthony T.
Bouldurian, John L. Cotter

The Fenn Cache: Clovis Weapons and Tools (Santa Fe: One Horse
Land and Cattle Company, 1999) George Frisson, Bruce Bradley

Clovis Blade Technology: A Comparative Study of the Kevin
Davis Cache, Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1999)
Michael B. Collins, Marvin Kay

> Duncan

[John Wilki]

In article <4ad78f65.0307241012.1487ddea@posting.google.com>,
man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote: ...
> I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter
> Siberia in an ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering Strait
> was decided upon before we even knew there was a time when
> the world was a lot cooler.

I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred
paleoanthropological history then? Did humanity evolve in
North America, or what?

--
John Wilkins It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen
to have failed. Truman Capote

[Mib529]

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<oo9vhvkmtditbcn8n5e2ll08pqenq1aerc@4ax.com>...
> On 23 Jul 2003 23:05:16 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
> (MIB529) wrote:
>
> >dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan Craig) wrote in message
> >news:<a37f0d1c.0307231857.3325df7f@posting.google.com>...
> >> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message news-
> >> :<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com>...
> >> > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> >> > > suggested?
> >> >
> >> > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same
> >> > shit that folks have "suggested" ever since the Spanish
> >> > made up the myth about white gods. They manage to get
> >> > away with it by lumping Indians with Orientals. So I
> >> > give them the following Clue cards:
> >>
> >> I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of
> >> white gods in places they had never been?... like Hawaii
> >> and the Marquesas.
> >
> >I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
> >to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a
> >god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived,
> >and reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't
> >stop folks like Barry Fell from selling books.
>
> A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping.
> Do you actually have any evidence that the underlying story
> is not true?

Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?

[Mib529]

"Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<WqLTa.199$hP.110239@news.uswest.net>...
> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>
> anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because of
> Racial Scientism debates of the 19th century, the
> monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th century,

Are you sure that's restricted to the 18th and 19th centuries?
Why, just three years ago, one of the Kennewick man plaintiffs
(C Loring Brace) was claiming Indians were Neanderthals, while
another (David Meltzer) was just happy with saying inbreeding
lead to what he viewed as inferiority.

> and then carried through by british socio-anthropology. all
> pre 20th and 21st century, long before threads like this.

I said "things like this thread", not "threads like this". The
idea of pre-Indian Caucasians is clearly one of those things.
Notice how the theory was posted on sites like Stormfront long
before Kennewick man was uncovered. And notice how, on the
flip side of the coin, Afrocentrics like John Henrik Clarke
were claiming pre-Indian Negroids in the 30s.

> lets keep it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations
> are what lead to the impressions of derogatory comments (and
> flaming).

[Mib529]

"Diarmid Logan" <diarmidlogan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<eda461bafb77286f0a5b50a92551be49.121266@mygate.mailga-
te.org>...
> "MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com
>
> > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
> > to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a
> > god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived,
> > and reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't
> > stop folks like Barry Fell from selling books.
>
> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>
> Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
> researchers does not mean that these scientists were
> racists.

And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man;
the "caucasoid" traits included:

Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids,
and rarely occurs in caucasoids) Narrow face (Chatters hasn't
seen many Indians.) Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the
laughter coming out of my own skull, with its cephalic index
of 72.9) Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little
variation?) Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen
many Indians.) V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that
Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.) Dental characteristics fit
Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never looked at Indian
teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns out we
lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the
lower first molar.)

His problem was that he used a system of three races. As such,
he ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals. Assuming
all brown-skinned people look alike is even more stereotypical
than assuming all Indians look alike.

He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental,
and stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early
teeth rotting, and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness.
Of course, he ignores that modern Indians have the highest
rate of diabetes in the world, which could probably be
explained by the high-carb commodities; it doesn't take a
genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates does to
teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now. And
the cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene invention,
rather than a more recent invention, the fallacy of course
being the assumption that technology is a constant.

[Mib529]

"Diarmid Logan" <diarmidlogan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<eda461bafb77286f0a5b50a92551be49.121266@mygate.mailga-
te.org>...
> > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
> > to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a
> > god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived,
> > and reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't
> > stop folks like Barry Fell from selling books.
>
> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>
> Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
> researchers does not mean that these scientists were
> racists.

Ah, one of the "We're not racist" crowd. Isn't it amazing?
Folks can call for Indians' extinction with signs like "Save a
spawning walleye, spear a pregnant squaw" and still insist
they're not racist. Clue: Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't
absolve you of racism.

[Mib529]

diarmidlogan@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
news:<6d220a72.0307240609.628cff94@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> > > > > suggested?
> > > >
> > > > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same
> > > > shit that folks have "suggested" ever since the
> > > > Spanish made up the myth about white gods. They manage
> > > > to get away with it by lumping Indians with Orientals.
> > > > So I give them the following Clue cards:
> > >
> > > I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of
> > > white gods in places they had never been?... like Hawaii
> > > and the Marquesas.
> >
> > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
> > to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a
> > god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived,
> > and reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't
> > stop folks like Barry Fell from selling books.
> >
> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>
> So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists
> who participated in this research racists?

In a word, yes. Sorry, but if they're not racist, they're
incredibly stupid. Geologists agree the Cordilleran and
Laurentide ice sheets met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In
fact, the only way to do it is either a 10,500-year maximum or
a 40,000-year minimum. Radiocarbon REPEATEDLY tells us against
a 10,500-year maximum - and even against this 18,000-year
maximum - therefore, either we're going to redefine quantum
mechanics, in which case I'll x-post this to sci.physics right
now; or we'll reject the 18,000-year minimum entirely.)

What do I have to do? Build a time machine and bring one of
these early Indians here? The case for an age over 18,000
years has done pretty much everything but that. I've also
provided you with a variety of Indian features, such as longer
limbs, which couldn't survive Siberia.

Let me guess: Geology, physics, and biology are all "Jew
science", right?

[Mib529]

Very well-written, Philip. Might I add ANY contact from Asia
also makes the DNA useless, since the entire assumption of DNA
is phyletic isolation.

I have the following criteria before I believe in
hyperdiffusion: 1) An idea can't be a near-universal, 2) it
has to be in both locations,
3) its evolution has to be tracked in location X, and not in
location Y, and 4) it must appear in location X before it
appears in location
Y. Obviously, this hypothetical diffusion is X>Y. For
technology, I look for environmental reasons as well; if
there's an environmental reason for a technology in
location Y, we can assume it was invented independently.

Philip Deitiker <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote in message
news:<ss00ivc76s4pr9pq04fvsooqt8cod9b23p@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 14:14:39 +0000 (UTC), "Diarmid Logan"
> <diarmidlogan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> >> anthropology has a reputation for racism.
> >
> >Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
> >researchers does not mean that these scientists were
> >racists.
>
> "White" has many contexts, it could be the color of
> traditional makeup of a tribe or the fact that skin color
> pales when people die, any one who insists that it must come
> from some unseen contact from europe fits that catagory of a
> racist, I think.
>
> You know columbus did not sail directly to mexico, he ran
> into islands, as any people would and then after further
> sailing reached Mexico. Saying that gods are white and come
> from this place or that place in the mexico central valley,
> its a little bit far fetched for the lack of information
> from other places. In terms of mexico the carribe indians
> traveled between the outer islands and mexico, They may have
> seen columbus and traveled to mexico informing the aztec
> leaders that powerful white men are coming.
>
>
> The basic problem is that these cypto-WE-racist see a hint
> of something and they are on their high alters proclaiming
> it as evidence. There is far more than a hint of evidence of
> contact over a long period of time from Asia, and no-one is
> on their high alter proclaiming it here, they are ignoring
> it. If for instance Inger and Erik were talking about recent
> off-continent contribution from both directions, I would
> certainly think more highly of them than trying to turn
> every bit of 'parallels' as evidence of pre-columbian
> migration from WEA. Also note the groups they exclude,
> they don't talk about the potency of the basque,
> legendary sea peoples, nor do they talk about
> contribution from africa or canary islands. They are
> simply focused on Egypt, Italy, Spain, Ireland and
> _Sweden_. This is why you can say they are racist.

[Eric Steve]

On 24 Jul 2003 19:23:06 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
(MIB529) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:<oo9vhvkmtditbcn8n5e2ll08pqenq1aerc@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Jul 2003 23:05:16 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
>> (MIB529) wrote:
>>
>> >dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan Craig) wrote in message
>> >news:<a37f0d1c.0307231857.3325df7f@posting.google.com>...
>> >> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message new-
>> >> s:<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
>> >> > > suggested?
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same
>> >> > shit that folks have "suggested" ever since the
>> >> > Spanish made up the myth about white gods. They manage
>> >> > to get away with it by lumping Indians with Orientals.
>> >> > So I give them the following Clue cards:
>> >>
>> >> I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of
>> >> white gods in places they had never been?... like Hawaii
>> >> and the Marquesas.
>> >
>> >I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
>> >to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a
>> >god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived,
>> >and reeks of white man's burden. Of course, that doesn't
>> >stop folks like Barry Fell from selling books.
>>
>> A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping.
>> Do you actually have any evidence that the underlying story
>> is not true?
>
>Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?

Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?

Eric Stevens

[Eric Steve]

On 24 Jul 2003 21:04:21 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
(MIB529) wrote:

>"Diarmid Logan" <diarmidlogan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<eda461bafb77286f0a5b50a92551be49.121266@mygate.mailga-
>te.org>...
>> "MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com
>>
>> > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
>> > to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as
>> > a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's
>> > contrived, and reeks of white man's burden. Of course,
>> > that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from selling
>> > books.
>>
>> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
>> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>>
>> Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
>> researchers does not mean that these scientists were
>> racists.
>
>And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man;
>the "caucasoid" traits included:
>
>Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids,
>and rarely occurs in caucasoids) Narrow face (Chatters hasn't
>seen many Indians.) Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll ignore the
>laughter coming out of my own skull, with its cephalic index
>of 72.9) Receding cheekbones (What? Races can't have a little
>variation?) Long, broad nose (I maintain Chatters hasn't seen
>many Indians.) V-shaped mandible (I maintain AGAIN that
>Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.) Dental characteristics
>fit Turner's sundadont pattern. (Turner never looked at
>Indian teeth when he announced we were sinodonts. It turns
>out we lack many of the sundadont traits, such as three roots
>on the lower first molar.)
>
>His problem was that he used a system of three races. As
>such, he ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals.
>Assuming all brown-skinned people look alike is even more
>stereotypical than assuming all Indians look alike.
>
>He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental,
>and stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early
>teeth rotting, and arthritis), are the essence of Indianness.
>Of course, he ignores that modern Indians have the highest
>rate of diabetes in the world, which could probably be
>explained by the high-carb commodities; it doesn't take a
>genius to figure out what a diet high in carbohydrates does
>to teeth. Similarly, a traditional lifestyle would contribute
>less to arthritis, hence the higher rate of arthritis now.
>And the cradleboard assumes it was an early-Holocene
>invention, rather than a more recent invention, the fallacy
>of course being the assumption that technology is a constant.

Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced
with this kind of argument is to get bogged down with arguing
on the same level. The best thing to do is to ignore possible
racist motivation and simply deal with the facts. The only
problem is that there are so many facts in this area which are
not yet known.

Eric Stevens

[Eric Steve]

On 24 Jul 2003 23:08:32 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
(MIB529) wrote:

>"Diarmid Logan" <diarmidlogan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<eda461bafb77286f0a5b50a92551be49.121266@mygate.mailga-
>te.org>...
>> > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
>> > to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as
>> > a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's
>> > contrived, and reeks of white man's burden. Of course,
>> > that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from selling
>> > books.
>>
>> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
>> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
>>
>> Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
>> researchers does not mean that these scientists were
>> racists.
>
>Ah, one of the "We're not racist" crowd. Isn't it amazing?
>Folks can call for Indians' extinction with signs like "Save
>a spawning walleye, spear a pregnant squaw" and still insist
>they're not racist. Clue: Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't
>absolve you of racism.

Very true, but I think you should consider that as it might
apply to yourself.

Eric Stevens

[Duncan Cra]

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<bdf0ivsniusgbrdp886638h5a7isqtb2u0@4ax.com>...
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
> <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
> ><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name dropping.
> >>Do you actually have any evidence that the underlying
> >>story is not true?
> >
> >You mean like Inger has been doing?
>
> Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's statement
> (deliberately snipped by you) that:
>
> "I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain cells
> to rub together really believes Cortes was worshipped as a
> god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the story's contrived,
> and reeks of white man's burden."
>
> I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that
> story but I certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on
> the basis a statement such as Duncan's. I was hoping he
> could produce a better argument.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard
Montellano. The subject of whether the story of a bearded
white (and I use the term broadly, as Phillip pointed out) was
an invention of the Spaniards, or pre-existant to the arrival
of Europeans has been much discussed. And the statement that I
made isn't the arguement, merely emblematic of it. I've
discussed it in terms of pre-existing portrayals, the
calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the local
forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
purpose of the legend, its etymology. It's a very popular
subject which I would have thought people are familiar with,
to the point of boredom. So if you're interested in the
discussions, google. I didn't think it was appropriate in this
thread subject or necessary to go into it over an aside. as
it's not exactly a new discussion. Suncan Craig

[Duncan Cra]

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<ii61ivcgom63v6u4pn4ap4nac8tu7op9sf@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Jul 2003 19:23:06 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
> (MIB529) wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:<oo9vhvkmtditbcn8n5e2ll08pqenq1aerc@4ax.com>...
> >> On 23 Jul 2003 23:05:16 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
> >> (MIB529) wrote:
> >>
> >> >dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan Craig) wrote in message new-
> >> >s:<a37f0d1c.0307231857.3325df7f@posting.google.com>...
> >> >> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
> >> >> news:<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com-
> >> >> >...
> >> >> > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> >> >> > > suggested?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same
> >> >> > shit that folks have "suggested" ever since the
> >> >> > Spanish made up the myth about white gods. They
> >> >> > manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
> >> >> > Orientals. So I give them the following Clue cards:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of
> >> >> white gods in places they had never been?... like
> >> >> Hawaii and the Marquesas.
> >> >
> >> >I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain
> >> >cells to rub together really believes Cortes was
> >> >worshipped as a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the
> >> >story's contrived, and reeks of white man's burden. Of
> >> >course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
> >> >selling books.
> >>
> >> A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name
> >> dropping. Do you actually have any evidence that the
> >> underlying story is not true?
> >
> >Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
>
> Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Probably more human than he turned out to be...and certainly
more human than the Aztecs appeared to Cortez. Duncan

[Eric Steve]

On 24 Jul 2003 19:29:09 -0700, dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan
Craig) wrote:

>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:<bdf0ivsniusgbrdp886638h5a7isqtb2u0@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
>> <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
>> ><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >>A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name
>> >>dropping. Do you actually have any evidence that the
>> >>underlying story is not true?
>> >
>> >You mean like Inger has been doing?
>>
>> Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's
>> statement (deliberately snipped by you) that:
>>
>> "I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain
>> cells to rub together really believes Cortes was
>> worshipped as a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the
>> story's contrived, and reeks of white man's burden."
>>
>> I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that
>> story but I certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion on
>> the basis a statement such as Duncan's. I was hoping he
>> could produce a better argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> Eric Stevens
>
>
>I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard
>Montellano. The subject of whether the story of a bearded
>white (and I use the term broadly, as Phillip pointed out)
>was an invention of the Spaniards, or pre-existant to the
>arrival of Europeans has been much discussed. And the
>statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely emblematic
>of it. I've discussed it in terms of pre-existing portrayals,
>the calendrics, the reactions of Montezuma, Cortes, the local
>forms the story takes. I've speculated on the origins and the
>purpose of the legend, its etymology. It's a very popular
>subject which I would have thought people are familiar with,
>to the point of boredom. So if you're interested in the
>discussions, google. I didn't think it was appropriate in
>this thread subject or necessary to go into it over an aside.
>as it's not exactly a new discussion.

It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument might
extend beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)

What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so
easily surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the
Aztecs so readily accept it?

Eric Stevens

[Duncan Cra]

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<6861ivk2hbfku34jijuu1h2mkqde7mr1th@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Jul 2003 19:29:09 -0700, dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan
> Craig) wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:<bdf0ivsniusgbrdp886638h5a7isqtb2u0@4ax.com>...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:01:07 -0500, Philip Deitiker
> >> <pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:35:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
> >> ><eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name
> >> >>dropping. Do you actually have any evidence that the
> >> >>underlying story is not true?
> >> >
> >> >You mean like Inger has been doing?
> >>
> >> Like there is any factual basis for Duncan Craig's
> >> statement (deliberately snipped by you) that:
> >>
> >> "I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain
> >> cells to rub together really believes Cortes was
> >> worshipped as a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the
> >> story's contrived, and reeks of white man's burden."
> >>
> >> I'm not arguing one way or another for the origin of that
> >> story but I certainly wouldn't try to reach a conclusion
> >> on the basis a statement such as Duncan's. I was hoping
> >> he could produce a better argument.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric Stevens
> >
> >
> >I could and have, Eric, with Lee Huddleston and Bernard
> >Montellano. The subject of whether the story of a bearded
> >white (and I use the term broadly, as Phillip pointed out)
> >was an invention of the Spaniards, or pre-existant to the
> >arrival of Europeans has been much discussed. And the
> >statement that I made isn't the arguement, merely
> >emblematic of it. I've discussed it in terms of
> >pre-existing portrayals, the calendrics, the reactions of
> >Montezuma, Cortes, the local forms the story takes. I've
> >speculated on the origins and the purpose of the legend,
> >its etymology. It's a very popular subject which I would
> >have thought people are familiar with, to the point of
> >boredom. So if you're interested in the discussions,
> >google. I didn't think it was appropriate in this thread
> >subject or necessary to go into it over an aside. as it's
> >not exactly a new discussion.
>
> It sounds to me as though the complexity of the argument
> might extend beyond the capacity of two brain cells. :-)
>
> What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so
> easily surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the
> Aztecs so readily accept it?
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Why do you think?

[Mib529]

John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:<wil-
kins-C75B69.17012125072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>...
> In article
> <4ad78f65.0307241012.1487ddea@posting.google.com>,
> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote: ...
> > I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter
> > Siberia in an ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering
> > Strait was decided upon before we even knew there was a
> > time when the world was a lot cooler.
>
> I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred
> paleoanthropological history then? Did humanity evolve in
> North America, or what?

Straw man. I'm not surprised. Just because I don't have a
theory doesn't logically mean that I can't debunk a current
theory. Let's face it: The theory claims that Indians have all
the intelligence of mollusks. Are you willing to hold that
theory? Are you also willing to explain why the features we
associate with Indianness are the exact features that would've
been selected AGAINST in the Bering Strait region? Oh, let me
guess: A miracle happened. Lots of em.

[Mib529]

John Wilkins <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:<wil-
kins-C75B69.17012125072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>...
> In article
> <4ad78f65.0307241012.1487ddea@posting.google.com>,
> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote: ...
> > I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter
> > Siberia in an ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering
> > Strait was decided upon before we even knew there was a
> > time when the world was a lot cooler.
>
> I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred
> paleoanthropological history then? Did humanity evolve in
> North America, or what?

So, what you're saying is, since Redi didn't know about
evolution, we should believe in spontaneous generation?

[Tedd]

"John Wilkins" <wilkins@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message news:wi-
lkins-C75B69.17012125072003@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au...
> In article
> <4ad78f65.0307241012.1487ddea@posting.google.com>,
> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote: ...
> > I'm still wondering: Why the HELL would someone enter
> > Siberia in an ice age? Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bering
> > Strait was decided upon before we even knew there was a
> > time when the world was a lot cooler.
>
> I'm intrigued to know: what is your preferred
> paleoanthropological history then? Did humanity evolve in
> North America, or what?

which theory would you like? land route? coastal route? water
transport? how about Stanford and Bradly's theory of migration
across a northern atlantic land bridge? or the southern route
up through argentina?

very few archaeologist (with the exception of the old cultural
historians, but they are dying out) actually believe beringia
was the _only_ migratory route to the america's, in fact, few
believe it was even the primary route, the time line just
doesnt fit. the problem is... we dont know, we dont have the
information. we all have speculation, conjecture, hypotheses,
but very little, if any, evidence of what route was used at
this time. there is more evidence to stand against the
beringia migration than there is against the joe smith
renaissance of the water transport theory from the middle
east, thats a pretty far fetched idea, but it's the reality of
it. you dont have to have subscribe to an alternative theory
to know you dont agree with an outdated one.

[Mib529]

boblancaster@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message
news:<b470cb58.0307240738.7cafe3f6@posting.google.com>...
> Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
>
> I've followed MIB's posts on the subject of anthropology (as
> well as a number of other topics) over the years. I do not
> always agree with him. In some cases I strongly agree with
> him, and in others I strongly disagree with him. MIB is more
> knowledgable on the subject of Anthropology than I am, but
> that is not the point.
>
> The point is, MIB is a Native American who is well aware of
> the reputation anthropologists have in the Native community.
> If he says Anthropology has a reputation for racism, it
> would be foolish to ignore him out of hand.

Besides the obvious reasons, relics from the 19th century, the
problem is that 20th-century anthropologists would date
Indians' arrival like this: A Chukchi crossed the Bering
Strait in a kayak yesterday. He brought us all with him.
(That's essentially what this genetic clock is, unless they
want to argue that Indians are a separate species. After all,
if that Chukchi were to have sons by Indians here, and they in
turn were to marry other Indians, and so on, then the genetic
clock's a cuckoo clock.)

And besides which, as long as I assume the Bering Strait
theory's true, I honestly can see racial differences in
intelligence. It's too bad that, under the Bering Strait
model, my own's at the bottom, somewhere among the
invertebrates, due to the genetic drift model that nothing
with a brain goes into a colder environment to escape the
cold. And not the higher invertebrates either; I'm talking the
ones that don't even have a basal ganglia. THAT'S how I see
the Bering Strait theory.

> You could dismiss MIB as just a crazy injun, or YOU could
> dig a little deeper. You could find out whether or not
> anthropology has such a reputation, and you could find out
> why. You could try reading books written by actual Native
> Americans (yes, some of us can write!). For example, Vine
> DeLoria has a hilarious description of anthropologists in
> one of his books. It's been over a decade since I read it,
> so I forget which one. I think it was _Custer Died for Your
> Sins_ or something like that. Or, you could try talking to
> some real live injuns yourself. I know there are plenty
> around you neck of the woods. I've talked to some not far
> from where you live who could tell you what the general
> reputation of anthropologists is, and could also tell you
> the names of anthropologists who respect, and are respected
> by, the local Native community.

Speaking of Vine, I should point out to posters here that he
doesn't believe everything he says in Red Earth, White Lies.
In fact, most of the pseudoscience, he views as equally valid
as the Bering Strait theory. (If you know the theme of REWL,
you know the validity he assigns to the Bering Strait theory.)

> Just putting my two cents in, I've known some very highly
> educated Indians who cannot stand anthropologists.
>
> I could also give you examples past the year 1900 of racism
> by anthropologists. One of my favorites is the
> antrhopologist who decided one of my ancestors was a
> mythical figure, even though she was a quite well known
> historical person. Little things like that tend to piss one
> off after a while.

My favorite was Hooten's claim of "pseudo-Australoids",
"pseudo-Negroids", "pseudo-Alpines", and "long-faced
Europeans" in Pecos Pueblo, from pre-Columbian times to even
after Spanish contact, which

Another one: Just three years ago, C Loring Brace claimed
Indians were descended from Neanderthals. I have him on record
saying race has no biological meaning, so how are we to take
being considered a separate species: That everyone's equal,
except Indians, who are a separate species altogether?

Trust me: You're not doing antiracism any favor by minimizing
the date, either. North Koreans and Mongolians deal a blow to
The Bell Curve just as effective as any Indian ever could, and
you're more implying Indian inferiority by using us as ammo
against it.

> Okay, let's try a little thought experiment. Anthropology
> is, or at least aspires to be, a science. (Sorry, but a
> physical scientist like myself can't help but find a few
> flaws in the rigor of Anthropology.) All fields of science
> are the sum of human *interpretations* of empirical data.
> Humans are flawed, therefore interpretations are flawed.
> Spmetimes the data are flawed. Anthropology is a science (so
> to speak) which is very sensitive to any ethnic biases.
> (Being that the study of humans is especially sensitive to
> any biases --positive or negative-- by the humans
> interpreting the data.)
>
> There are only two logical possibilites:
>
> (1) There are no racist anthropologists
>
> or
>
> (2) The field of Anthropology is necessarily tainted by the
> racism, conscious or otherwise, of anthropologists.
>
>
> The first possibility requires perfection in a large group
> of humans, so it can safely be ruled out.
>
> That leaves one, and ONLY one, logical possiblity. The field
> of Anthropology is tainted by racism.
>
> I'm not talking about the 18th or 19th century, I'm talking
> about the 21st century. The bad reputation of Anthropology
> in the 21st century Native American community is due to
> recent and current anthropologists.
>
> As I've said, I don't agree with MIB all the time. In this
> case he's right on target. It would take a little bit of
> digging to find out why he hit the bullseye here, but I'll
> give you a two word clue to help start your search:
> Kenniwick Man.

I described the basic failure of Kennewick man. In fact, all
these "caucasoid" skeletons seem to invariably look like so
many of my relatives.

[Bob Lancas]

man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
news:<4ad78f65.0307242219.7ca6f62d@posting.google.com>...
> diarmidlogan@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
> news:<6d220a72.0307240609.628cff94@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> > > > > > suggested?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same
> > > > > shit that folks have "suggested" ever since the
> > > > > Spanish made up the myth about white gods. They
> > > > > manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
> > > > > Orientals. So I give them the following Clue cards:
> > > >
> > > > I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of
> > > > white gods in places they had never been?... like
> > > > Hawaii and the Marquesas.
> > >
> > > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain
> > > cells to rub together really believes Cortes was
> > > worshipped as a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the
> > > story's contrived, and reeks of white man's burden. Of
> > > course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
> > > selling books.
> > >
> > > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> > > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
> >
> > So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other scientists
> > who participated in this research racists?
>
> In a word, yes. Sorry, but if they're not racist, they're
> incredibly stupid. Geologists agree the Cordilleran and
> Laurentide ice sheets met, and thus Clovis is untenable. (In
> fact, the only way to do it is either a 10,500-year maximum
> or a 40,000-year minimum. Radiocarbon REPEATEDLY tells us
> against a 10,500-year maximum - and even against this
> 18,000-year maximum - therefore, either we're going to
> redefine quantum mechanics, in which case I'll x-post this
> to sci.physics right now; or we'll reject the 18,000-year
> minimum entirely.)
>
> What do I have to do? Build a time machine and bring one of
> these early Indians here? The case for an age over 18,000
> years has done pretty much everything but that. I've also
> provided you with a variety of Indian features, such as
> longer limbs, which couldn't survive Siberia.
>
> Let me guess: Geology, physics, and biology are all "Jew
> science", right?

MIB, if it makes you feel any better, from what I have heard
from young archeologists, the Clovis Point crowd is now viewed
as a bunch of old guys who refuse to let facts get in the way
of their theories. Wait a few years. All the Clovis Point
crowd will retire. In the meantime, some of the younger guys
are trying to do some real science. For example, there is a
group in a unuversity close to where I live that is currently
digging in central Alaska, looking for remants of a
civilization that has already been shown to have been there
from 13k BP to about 6k BP. Except the Clovis crowd says the
first paleo-injuns got to Alaska about 12k BP. Isn't faster
than light migration fun?

-Bob

[Tedd]

"Bob Lancaster" <boblancaster@zxmail.com> wrote in message
news:b470cb58.0307240738.7cafe3f6@posting.google.com...
> "Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<WqLTa.199$hP.110239@news.uswest.net>...
> > "MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> > > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
> >
> > anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because
> > of Racial Scientism
debates of the 19th
> > century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the 18th
> > century, and then
carried through by
> > british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st century,
> > long before
threads like this. lets keep
> > it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what
> > lead to the
impressions of derogatory
> > comments (and flaming).
> >
> > dig deeper,
> >
> > tedd.
>
> Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
>

yup, dig deeper. personal biases or points of view dont equal
reality, only an interpretation of reality. there are no
absolutes, there is no uniformity, to claim so is to lock
yourself to your own biased interpretations.

i'm not insulting MIB, (that would make me a fool), read the
statement again, his comment "...things like this thread..."
was a shallow, surface statement when the roots go back far
beyond "this thread" (as i'm sure he'd agree). do i agree with
him, of course i do, anthropology was based on "racism" in
time and place and to a degree still is in some circles
(otherwise we wouldnt be having this conversation).

yes i have read DeLoria, and Vizenor, Silko, Welch, Erdrich,
and found them to be just as guilty of what you are claiming
anthropologists to be. and if i assumed that their points of
view spoke for the entirety of the population i'd be just as
guilty as those who claim all anthropologists are racist.
there are anthropologists that are just as controversial
within the discipline as Erdrich is within the native american
population.

and for what it's worth; there is more than one theological
orientation in anthropology (not to mention approaches), dont
lump us all into the same mold. that'd be like me insulting
you by saying Cherokee and Inuit are one and the same because
they're both indians. (that was said in jest.) ;)

tedd.

[Mib529]

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<8cd1ivk2750t4mu19s7nb1qms8u30o1uf9@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Jul 2003 21:04:21 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
> (MIB529) wrote:
>
> >"Diarmid Logan" <diarmidlogan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:<eda461bafb77286f0a5b50a92551be49.121266@mygate.mailg-
> >ate.org>...
> >> "MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com
> >>
> >> > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain
> >> > cells to rub together really believes Cortes was
> >> > worshipped as a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the
> >> > story's contrived, and reeks of white man's burden. Of
> >> > course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
> >> > selling books.
>
> >> > In case your wondering, things like this thread are why
> >> > anthropology has a reputation for racism.
> >>
> >> Just because you don't agree with the findings of the
> >> researchers does not mean that these scientists were
> >> racists.
> >
> >And when they do a snow job it does. Look at Kennewick man;
> >the "caucasoid" traits included:
> >
> >Prognathous jaw (Um, no. It most likely occurs in negroids,
> >and rarely occurs in caucasoids) Narrow face (Chatters
> >hasn't seen many Indians.) Cephalic index 73.8 (You'll
> >ignore the laughter coming out of my own skull, with its
> >cephalic index of 72.9) Receding cheekbones (What? Races
> >can't have a little variation?) Long, broad nose (I
> >maintain Chatters hasn't seen many Indians.) V-shaped
> >mandible (I maintain AGAIN that Chatters hasn't seen many
> >Indians.) Dental characteristics fit Turner's sundadont
> >pattern. (Turner never looked at Indian teeth when he
> >announced we were sinodonts. It turns out we lack many of
> >the sundadont traits, such as three roots on the lower
> >first molar.)
> >
> >His problem was that he used a system of three races. As
> >such, he ASSUMED Indians would look just like Orientals.
> >Assuming all brown-skinned people look alike is even more
> >stereotypical than assuming all Indians look alike.
> >
> >He also assumes traits which are essentially environmental,
> >and stereotypical at that (cradleboard deformation, early
> >teeth rotting, and arthritis), are the essence of
> >Indianness. Of course, he ignores that modern Indians have
> >the highest rate of diabetes in the world, which could
> >probably be explained by the high-carb commodities; it
> >doesn't take a genius to figure out what a diet high in
> >carbohydrates does to teeth. Similarly, a traditional
> >lifestyle would contribute less to arthritis, hence the
> >higher rate of arthritis now. And the cradleboard assumes
> >it was an early-Holocene invention, rather than a more
> >recent invention, the fallacy of course being the
> >assumption that technology is a constant.
>
> Can I suggest that the last thing we need to do when faced
> with this kind of argument is to get bogged down with
> arguing on the same level. The best thing to do is to ignore
> possible racist motivation and simply deal with the facts.

And the facts are that those "pre-Indian caucasoids" look
virtually identical to modern Indians. It's only by comparing
them to Orientals that you get anything different.

After mentioning the facts, it IS interesting, the motivation
behind such stories. Notice that when Kennewick man first
occurred, I argued the facts, THEN argued the motivation. (Not
that I hadn't figured the motivation out in, like, five
seconds. In most of the US, it's open season on Indians.)

> The only problem is that there are so many facts in this
> area which are not yet known.

And so many of the facts are common sense. The Bering Strait
theory doesn't work in a Darwinian context, for example,
unless you want to simultaneously argue that Indians don't
have the intelligence to figure out that colder environments
aren't a way to get warm, but simultaneously argue that
Indians have the technology to stay off natural selection's
radar for at least 1500 years. Which leads one to wonder:
Where did the technology come from?

[Mib529]

Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<ii61ivcgom63v6u4pn4ap4nac8tu7op9sf@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Jul 2003 19:23:06 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
> (MIB529) wrote:
>
> >Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:<oo9vhvkmtditbcn8n5e2ll08pqenq1aerc@4ax.com>...
> >> On 23 Jul 2003 23:05:16 -0700, man_in_black529@yahoo.com
> >> (MIB529) wrote:
> >>
> >> >dunkers@pacbell.net (Duncan Craig) wrote in message new-
> >> >s:<a37f0d1c.0307231857.3325df7f@posting.google.com>...
> >> >> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
> >> >> news:<4ad78f65.0307231240.7c56a492@posting.google.com-
> >> >> >...
> >> >> > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is being
> >> >> > > suggested?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the same
> >> >> > shit that folks have "suggested" ever since the
> >> >> > Spanish made up the myth about white gods. They
> >> >> > manage to get away with it by lumping Indians with
> >> >> > Orientals. So I give them the following Clue cards:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth of
> >> >> white gods in places they had never been?... like
> >> >> Hawaii and the Marquesas.
> >> >
> >> >I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain
> >> >cells to rub together really believes Cortes was
> >> >worshipped as a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the
> >> >story's contrived, and reeks of white man's burden. Of
> >> >course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
> >> >selling books.
> >>
> >> A good example of distortion and ad-hominem name
> >> dropping. Do you actually have any evidence that the
> >> underlying story is not true?
> >
> >Because no Aztec deity even appears to be fully human?
>
> Did Cortez appear fully human to the Aztecs?

To which I must reply, did he have brown scales? Did he have a
rainbow tail?

[Duncan Cra]

boblancaster@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message
news:<b470cb58.
>
>
> MIB, if it makes you feel any better, from what I have heard
> from young archeologists, the Clovis Point crowd is now
> viewed as a bunch of old guys who refuse to let facts get in
> the way of their theories. Wait a few years. All the Clovis
> Point crowd will retire. In the meantime, some of the
> younger guys are trying to do some real science. For
> example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I
> live that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking
> for remants of a civilization that has already been shown to
> have been there from 13k BP to about 6k BP. Except the
> Clovis crowd says the first paleo-injuns got to Alaska about
> 12k BP. Isn't faster than light migration fun?
>
> -Bob

Yes...guess it didn't take 'em very long to get from Monte
Verde,Chile to Alaska. Duncan

[Daryl Krup]

boblancaster@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message
news:<b470cb58.0307250537.50b786c9@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> For example, there is a group in a unuversity close to
> where I live that is currently digging in central Alaska,
> looking for remants of a civilization that has already been
> shown to have been there from 13k BP to about 6k BP.

Unless cities have been found there, there was no
"civilisation" there. You claim too much.

> Except the Clovis crowd says the first paleo-injuns got to
> Alaska about 12k BP.

Wrong. They claim that the first paleo-Indians got OUT OF
Alaska about 12 ka BP. Until then, they were IN Alaska
waiting for the ice-free corridor to open up and let them
migrate southeast OUT OF Alaska so that they could GET TO
Alberta about 12 ka BP. Alaska is the northernmost part of
the United States of America, just across the Bering Strait
from Russia, with a Pacific Ocean coast and an Arctic Ocean
coast, and is bordered on the east by Yukon Territory and
on the southeast by British Columbia (both part of the
Dominion of Canada). Alberta is also part of the Dominion
of Canada, but it has no sea coasts. Alberta is on the east
side of British Columbia, east of the Conrinental Divide.
While your confusion is understandable (both "Alaska" and
"Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a", and they
both have thre syllables) you really should have a look at
a map of North America before you start criticizing others
for being ignorant.

> Isn't faster than light migration fun?
>
> -Bob

[Philip Dei]

On 25 Jul 2003 13:36:01 -0700, icycalmca@yahoo.com (Daryl
Krupa) wrote:

> While your confusion is understandable (both "Alaska" and
> "Alberta" start with an "A" and end with and "a", and they
> both have thre syllables) you really should have a look at
> a map of North America before you start criticizing others
> for being ignorant.

Daryl at his finest once again. Pray tell us Daryl, when did
the arrive in AlAskA? 1 my BC?

[Mib529]

"Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:<ESbUa.148$3f3.37243@news.uswest.net>...
> "Bob Lancaster" <boblancaster@zxmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b470cb58.0307240738.7cafe3f6@posting.google.com...
> > "Tedd" <Jacobs@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
> news:<WqLTa.199$hP.110239@news.uswest.net>...
> > > "MIB529" <man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4ad78f65.0307232205.75de4d64@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > In case your wondering, things like this thread are
> > > > why anthropology has a reputation for racism.
> > >
> > > anthropology's reputation for racism was spurred because
> > > of Racial Scientism
> debates of the 19th
> > > century, the monogenesis/polygenesis arguments of the
> > > 18th century, and then
> carried through by
> > > british socio-anthropology. all pre 20th and 21st
> > > century, long before
> threads like this. lets keep
> > > it realistic in accusations, misrepresentations are what
> > > lead to the
> impressions of derogatory
> > > comments (and flaming).
> > >
> > > dig deeper,
> > >
> > > tedd.
> >
> > Dig deeper, says the man digging with a plastic spoon.
> >
>
> yup, dig deeper. personal biases or points of view dont
> equal reality, only an interpretation of reality. there are
> no absolutes, there is no uniformity, to claim so is to lock
> yourself to your own biased interpretations.
>
> i'm not insulting MIB, (that would make me a fool), read the
> statement again, his comment "...things like this thread..."
> was a shallow, surface statement when the roots go back far
> beyond "this thread" (as i'm sure he'd agree). do i agree
> with him, of course i do, anthropology was based on "racism"
> in time and place and to a degree still is in some circles
> (otherwise we wouldnt be having this conversation).
>
> yes i have read DeLoria, and Vizenor, Silko, Welch, Erdrich,
> and found them to be just as guilty of what you are claiming
> anthropologists to be. and if i assumed that their points of
> view spoke for the entirety of the population i'd be just as
> guilty as those who claim all anthropologists are racist.
> there are anthropologists that are just as controversial
> within the discipline as Erdrich is within the native
> american population.
>
> and for what it's worth; there is more than one
> theological orientation in anthropology (not to mention
> approaches), dont lump us all into the same mold. that'd
> be like me insulting you by saying Cherokee and Inuit are
> one and the same because they're both indians. (that was
> said in jest.) ;)

But many anthropologists DO insist on comparing Indian remains
to Orientals and deciding if you can't find enough
similarities, it ain't Indian, regardless of how much it looks
like Indians. From this apparent difference, they spin wild
theories about how whites were here before Indians and how
Indians wiped said whites out.

[Mib529]

boblancaster@zxmail.com (Bob Lancaster) wrote in message
news:<b470cb58.0307250537.50b786c9@posting.google.com>...
> man_in_black529@yahoo.com (MIB529) wrote in message
> news:<4ad78f65.0307242219.7ca6f62d@posting.google.com>...
> > diarmidlogan@yahoo.com (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
> > news:<6d220a72.0307240609.628cff94@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > By mentioning "short broad skulls", what is
> > > > > > > being suggested?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll be blunt: What's being "suggested" is the
> > > > > > same shit that folks have "suggested" ever since
> > > > > > the Spanish made up the myth about white gods.
> > > > > > They manage to get away with it by lumping Indians
> > > > > > with Orientals. So I give them the following Clue
> > > > > > cards:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm curious as to how the Spanish made up the myth
> > > > > of white gods in places they had never been?... like
> > > > > Hawaii and the Marquesas.
> > > >
> > > > I meant white gods in Mexico. No one with two brain
> > > > cells to rub together really believes Cortes was
> > > > worshipped as a god when he entered Tenochtitlan; the
> > > > story's contrived, and reeks of white man's burden. Of
> > > > course, that doesn't stop folks like Barry Fell from
> > > > selling books.
> > > >
> > > > In case your wondering, things like this thread are
> > > > why anthropology has a reputation for racism.
> > >
> > > So you are accusing Spencer Wells and the other
> > > scientists who participated in this research racists?
> >
> > In a word, yes. Sorry, but if they're not racist, they're
> > incredibly stupid. Geologists agree the Cordilleran and
> > Laurentide ice sheets met, and thus Clovis is untenable.
> > (In fact, the only way to do it is either a 10,500-year
> > maximum or a 40,000-year minimum. Radiocarbon REPEATEDLY
> > tells us against a 10,500-year maximum - and even against
> > this 18,000-year maximum - therefore, either we're going
> > to redefine quantum mechanics, in which case I'll x-post
> > this to sci.physics right now; or we'll reject the
> > 18,000-year minimum entirely.)
> >
> > What do I have to do? Build a time machine and bring one
> > of these early Indians here? The case for an age over
> > 18,000 years has done pretty much everything but that.
> > I've also provided you with a variety of Indian features,
> > such as longer limbs, which couldn't survive Siberia.
> >
> > Let me guess: Geology, physics, and biology are all "Jew
> > science", right?
>
>
>
> MIB, if it makes you feel any better, from what I have heard
> from young archeologists, the Clovis Point crowd is now
> viewed as a bunch of old guys who refuse to let facts get in
> the way of their theories. Wait a few years. All the Clovis
> Point crowd will retire. In the meantime, some of the
> younger guys are trying to do some real science. For
> example, there is a group in a unuversity close to where I
> live that is currently digging in central Alaska, looking
> for remants of a civilization that has already been shown to
> have been there from 13k BP to about 6k BP. Except the
> Clovis crowd says the first paleo-injuns got to Alaska about
> 12k BP. Isn't faster than light migration fun?

The whole thing's based on a lot of spurious data. "Amerind"
languages aren't something most linguists will claim exist;
even those who believe in Nostratic languages take a pause
before Amerind.

[Doug Welle]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:50:14 +1200, in sci.anthropology.paleo,
Eric Stevens wrote: [SNIP]
>
>What then is the true basis of the story of Moctezuma so
>easily surrendering his rule of the Aztecs and why did the
>Aztecs so readily accept it?

Aren't you making some assumptions here? And why are you
implying that the Aztecs readily accepts Moctezuma's
'surrendering his rule'? I have an article somewhere by a
military historian who goes into some depth into the conquest
of the Aztecs. I can't find it at the moment and don't know if