American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Ancient Woman Suggests Diverse Migration

More news stories on Ancient History

Mark Stevenson, USA Today, July 26, 2010

A scientific reconstruction of one of the oldest sets of human remains found in the Americas appears to support theories that the first people who came to the hemisphere migrated from a broader area than once thought, researchers say.

Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History on July 22 released photos of the reconstructed image of a woman who probably lived on Mexico’s Caribbean coast 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. She peeks out of the picture as a short, spry-looking woman with slightly graying hair.

Anthropologists had long believed humans migrated to the Americas in a relatively short period from a limited area in northeast Asia across a temporary land corridor that opened across the Bering Strait during an ice age.

But government archaeologist Alejandro Terrazas says the picture has now become more complicated, because the reconstruction more resembles people from southeastern Asian areas like Indonesia.

{snip}

Some outside experts caution that the evidence is not conclusive.

Ripan Malhi, assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Illinois, said that “using facial reconstructions to assign ancestry to an individual is not as strong as using ancient DNA to assess the ancestry of the individual, because the environment can influence the traits of the face.”

“All of the current genetic evidence points to Northeast Asia as the main source for Native Americans,” Malhi said.

{snip}

The female is known as “La Mujer de las Palmas,” or “The Woman of the Palms,” after the sinkhole cave near the Caribbean resort of Tulum where her remains were found by divers and recovered in 2002.

Because rising water levels flooded the cave where she died or was laid to rest, her skeleton was about 90% intact. Archaeologists and physical anthropologists calculated she was between 44 and 50 years old when she died, was about 5 feet tall and weighed about 128 pounds.

{snip}

“Recently there has been more serious inquiry into the various origins of migrants, modes of transportation, and dates of when they got here,” Gillespie [Susan Gillespie, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Florida] said in an e-mail message. “Dates for peopling of the Americas have been pushed way back, and with the finding of very early skeletal remains, the genetic/skeletal linkages to peoples of northeast Asia has become more cloudy.”

{snip}

recomsturction
Photo of a reconstruction based on the skeletal remains of a woman who lived between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago in Tulum, Mexico.

Original article

(Posted on July 26, 2010)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Michael C. Scott wrote at 5:32 PM on July 26:

This seems likely. The Polynesians were excellent sailors and certainly reached Easter Island. Did they reach mainland South America? Peruvian Indians once used stone clubs nearly identical to those used by New Zealand’s Maoris, with very nearly the same word for the clubs, so it seems likely, even if in relatively small numbers. Consider also that yams were spread across the Pacific before the arrival of Europeans, and this crop was native to South America. Unlike coconuts, yams are not capable of self-propagating across vast ocean distances.


2 — Anonymous wrote at 5:53 PM on July 26:

My theory is that Humans emerged in SAmerica and spread out from there… This one is a given. When are liberals ever right?

3 — Blaak Obongo wrote at 6:56 PM on July 26:

It seems that just about every race on earth is permitted to claim the title of First Ancient Colonizers Of The Americas except White Europeans.

Findings indicative of prehistoric colonizers from Europe are always nervously brushed away by the controlled governmedia as “controversial.”

4 — Southern Hoosier wrote at 8:46 PM on July 26:

ST. LOUIS — The first humans to spread across North America may have been seal hunters from France and Spain.

This runs counter to the long-held belief that the first human entry into the Americas was a crossing of a land-ice bridge that spanned the Bering Strait about 13,500 years ago.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11451616/

5 — A. Windaus wrote at 10:13 PM on July 26:

@Michael C. Scott: Genetic tests show that the Maori people originally came from the Taiwanese aborigines. It was discovered accidentally when genetic tests of native New Zealand rats was being done and it was discovered that they’re nearly genetically identical to Taiwanese rats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maori#Origins

6 — BlueBlood wrote at 11:27 PM on July 26:

A study found ancient Amerindian women in East Canada and Northeast United States had mtDNA H which is very common in Europe.

7 — John McNeill wrote at 3:08 AM on July 27:

I’m suspicious of any claims of “diverse origins” of different nations. This article seems eerily similar to the discovery of one mummy that led scientists to believe that Iron Age Denmark was a multiracial utopia. Mind you, the allegedly foreign Danish mummy looked native, and this reconstructed woman looks like she could have been a part of a indigenous Amerindian society.

8 — Anonymous wrote at 7:28 AM on July 27:

“Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History released photos of the reconstructed image of a woman who probably lived on Mexico’s Caribbean coast 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. She peeks out of the picture as a short, spry-looking woman with slightly graying hair.”

The woman shown in these Mexican-made reconstructions looks white to me, or very close. Certainly much more Caucasian than Indian, Mayan, or whatever. In other words, she looks just about the way modern Mexicans would like her to have looked. I have to be dubious about these reconstructions. Also, did they have textiles (and in the New World) 10 to 12 thousand years ago? And of what precisely material is that dress? Frankly, I see a lot of imagination and fantasy in this idealized picture.

9 — Ron68 wrote at 9:17 AM on July 27:

This is ridiculous, and the anthropologists who come up with this are idiots. Any morphologist or cranialogist can tell you that there is great variance in skeletal structure and/or facial structure even between people of one family- let alone people of a particular ethnic group, racial group, etc. And to make matters even sillier, I’m willing to bet that not a single one of these idiots has ever been to Southest Asia, much less understand that much about the Southeast Asian population. Southeast Asia is populated with people of almost from EVERY racial group on earth, and the only people that may be absent from the long list are indigenous American Indians, who are, as most of us know, mostly of mongoloid descent. And that, people, is the clincher as far as I’m concerned- meaning that there could have been a genetic marker that was common in some asiatics thousands of years of ago that found its way to the Americas- albeit not in any great number, and also found its way into Southeast Asia as well. In the end, though, the people who come up with these stupid “theories” have way too much time on their hands, and they also seem to have a simpleton’s understanding of genetics and the migration patterns of ancient peoples.

10 — Anonymous wrote at 9:46 AM on July 27:

3 — Blaak Obongo wrote at 6:56 PM on July 26:

It seems that just about every race on earth is permitted to claim the title of First Ancient Colonizers Of The Americas except White Europeans.

Findings indicative of prehistoric colonizers from Europe are always nervously brushed away by the controlled governmedia as “controversial.”
————————————————————————————————-


This post just about sums it all up! White Euros have to be castigated and vilified and denied their true history to keep all the lies alive. (We all know that nonwhites have always had the best civilizations and inventions, now don’t we?)

11 — LZ wrote at 12:27 PM on July 27:

Folks,

You want to know who the first Americans were?

Go to the Discovery Channel’s website and buy yourself a copy of “Ice Age Columbus”. Watch it, then draw your own conclusions.

12 — john wrote at 3:20 PM on July 27:

I saw that very woman the other day at the train station! she asked for $5 because she had “run out of gas”!

13 — Bob T. wrote at 3:20 PM on July 27:

All living things seek to be where they are comfortable. Living things that can move about, do so. Humans have been seeking comfort since there were humans. This means that humans have been flowing in and flowing out of just about every land on the planet. It’s probable that the eastern part of the U.S. had white people first, while the western part had Asians.

14 — Bill R wrote at 3:55 PM on July 27:

Key in on the operative word “reconstruction”. How many times did they “reconstruct” a skull found to declare the missing link had been found - only to have it admitted as a hoak decades later by the hoaxer, or to have it proven that the “skull” had parts of primates put with a human brain pan. Or vice versa. These “reconstructions” always merely show the newest fad in evolution, or the newest social commentary as to continental origins. I guess the native american doesn’t rate in the newest social commentary. Wasn’t even considered. Drawn as an Asian Islander. Anybody but me make the link as to the Chinese owning all our debt and surpassing us in all ways, and the sudden enlightenment of S America being discovered by Asians? Back in the 50’s and 70’s native americans were the darlings of the universities, so everything was founded by native americans. Then the blacks were the darlings of the universities and the media, so blacks were Egyptian and the founders of the Carribean leading to South America. Now it’s Chinese and Asians.
All this tells us that academia has NO interest whatsoever in WHITE culture, advances, and colonization if they ever had. ANYBODY but the white man!

15 — Anonymous wrote at 9:26 PM on July 27:

What we know about human origins and differentiation is hugely
dwarfed by what is not known. It appears we know enough now
to have varied hypotheses and to set an informed framework for
quick appreciation of new discoveries and for reasoned disputation. One of the victims of this rush to certainty has
been the late Professor Carleton S. Coon. His work would not stand intact amidst what is now known, but it would seem that major portions are deserving of recasting and of acknowledgment?


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search