The First Americans were Khoisan, Bering Strait, Craniometry, Y chromosome

The First Americans were Khoisan
The first Americans sailed to America from Africa. They had to have come from Africa because the last ICE AGE blocked people from crossing the Bering straits before 16kya. As any inquisitive 10-year-old that love history, for the entirety of learning history from primary to secondary school, even in Africa itself there are hardly any positive things that were taught pertaining to the historicity of the people of colours. I always leave my history lessons feeling empty, having learned about the glorification of other races achievements.

Illustration of the Ice Age Map

It was constantly hammered into our Noddle that the Caucasian type-men were the first explorer on our planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Remember most truth are half-false and most falsehoods are a half-truth. In fact, everything they assert on the subject matter of Black history bears a direct relation to their own uneventful history apart from wars, destruction of contrary historical evidence, anglicisation, indentures, massacres, and the slave-trade.

If you could not cross the Bering until 14kya and all the skeletons of ancient inhabitants are found near the Atlantic coastline the people had to have come from Africa given the fact the craniometrics indicate that they were of the African variety, and ice blocked any possible movement of people from the Pacific to Argentina and Chile where some of the evidence of early man has been found. The first Americans did not cross the Bearing Straits to enter the Americas.

An Illustration of the Ice Age Map

By using the science of Craniometriorlogy and paleontology, the affinities between writings and languages, religion and rituals and other important evidence, collected over the years by eminent Caucasian, Black, Brown and other scientists via archaeological researches to assert that the first human explorers were Africans.

And a brief introduction into the science of Craniometrologic Coefficient of Racial Likeness. The earliest sites for Negroes date between 20,000 and 40000 years ago Old Crow Basin Canada(38,000BC) Pedra Furada (45,000BC) Brazil. These people were Khoisan type according to Dr. Dixon, & Dr. Marquez(p.179). Chile: Monteverde (12,500 years), Tierra del Fuego, Cueva de Fell, Tres Arroyos, and some other places. There are older ones in the Argentinian Patagonia. The ethnicity of the remains found in the aforementioned sites was determined using Craniometry.

CRANIOMETRY
Craniometry is the measurement of the cranium (the main part of the skull), usually the human cranium. It is a subset of cephalometry, measurement of the head, which in humans is a subset of anthropometry, measurement of the human body. The science of measuring skulls, chiefly to determine their characteristic relationship to sex, body type, or genetic population. The skulls of the bodies found were carefully preserved for craniometric examination. Measurement of the skull to determine its characteristics.

Pedra Furada, Brazil

In understanding the Coefficient of Racial Likeness the first thing to be noted is that it is a test of significance. This is a technical term, standing for an idea very prevalent in experimental science, which no one need fail to understand, for it can be made plain in very simple terms. Let us suppose, for example, that we have measurements of the stature of a hundred Englishmen and a hundred Frenchmen. It may be that the first group is, on the average, an inch taller than the second, although the two sets of heights will overlap widely.

If the two groups have been chosen from their respective populations in such a way as not to be random samples of the populations they represent, then an examination of the samples will clearly not enable us to compare these populations ; but even if our samples are satisfactory in the manner in which they have been obtained, the further question arises as to whether a difference of the magnitude observed might not have occurred by chance, in samples from populations of the same average height.

Cave Painting from one of the many littered across Pedra Furada, Brazil

If the probability of this is considerable, that is, if it would have occurred in fifty, or even ten, percent. of such trials, the difference between our samples is said to be " insignificant." If its probability of occurrence is small, such as one in a thousand, or one in a hundred, or even one in twenty trials, it will usually be termed (( significant," and be regarded as providing substantial evidence of an average difference in stature between the two populations sampled.

Reconstructed Face of Luzia 9,500 BCE

In the first case, the test can never lead us to assert that the two populations are identical, even in stature. We can only say that the evidence provided by the data is insufficient to justify the assertion that they are different. In the second case, we may be more positive.

We know that either our sampling has been exceptionally unfortunate, or that the populations really do differ in the sense indicated by the available data. The chance of our being deceived in the latter conclusion may be very small and, what is more important, maybe calculable with accuracy, and without reliance on personal judgment.

Consequently, while we require a more stringent test of significance for some conclusions than for others, no one doubts, in practice, that the probability of being led to an erroneous conclusion by the chances of sampling only, can, by repetition or enlargement of the sample, be made so small that the reality of the difference must be regarded as convincingly demonstrated.

It may be asked how we can speak of" how often " a certain average will be recorded in a thousand trials when, in fact, we have only one sample to base our knowledge on.

If indeed, we had a thousand samples of ~n~lishmen, all of the same number, we could, of course, see in how many of them, if in any, the observed average stature was as low as in the French sample. We could do the same mutatis mutandis if we had a thousand similar samples of Frenchmen. But, in fact, we have only supposed ourselves to possess one sample from each nation. The point is really one which deserves attention, and the failure to make it clear is certainly responsible for a great part of the misapplication and consequent mistrust from which statistical reasoning has suffered.

The first Americans were Khoisan speakers. The Penon woman of Mexico and Luzia of Brazil were probably Khoisan. this is supported by the ancient Y-chromosomes of the Fuegians of South America.

Fuegians Drawing and modern Khoisan Image

We said the Fuegians were related to the Khoisan because of the Y-chromosomes they carried. Fuegians 100-400 BP carried haplogroup A1. Hg A1 is an African haplogroup.

The y chromosome STRs of the Fuegians include DYS434,DYS437,DYS 439, DYS 393, DYS391,DYS390,DYS19, DYS 389I, DYS389II and DYS 388 (see: Garcia-Bour et al above). Except for DYS390 and DYS388 they are characteristic of haplogroup A1 .Y-chromosome A1 is recognized as one of the oldest African haplogroup.

Book: García-Bour J., 2004 Early population differentiation in extinct aborigines from Tierra del Fuego-Patagonia: ancient mtDNA sequences and Y chromosome STR characterization. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 123, 361–370. (doi:10.1002/ajpa.10337) CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science, Am J Phys Anthropol. 2004 Apr;123(4):361-70. See:  http://docencia.med.uchile.cl/smg/pdf/GARCIA-BOUR-fueguian2004.pdf  In 1959 archaeologists found the Penon woman skeleton at Mexico City. End of Part 1 of  4. The next blog 14/04/19.