Americas

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

It would be a matter of giving something in return, not just finding one indigenous person willing to do it. I'll give a non-Firaxis example of this done right. Disney used a lot of Sapmi/Saami images in Frozen II. They contacted the relevant groups and offered internships at Disney for Sapmi students as well as bringing on cultural consultants. As a result, both Disney and the Sapmi were pretty pleased with the result. I think there's a different result for Raya, which used an American team doing a lot of the art (with [East] Asian voice actors, with one exception). The result was confusing to a lot of Southeast Asians watching - here is a specific building from X era next to a specific building from Y era. Here is something that looks Dayak, and a place that feels (?) like Singapore. Here are Vietnamese hats on Lao shirts. ???

 

[Patine]

It would be a matter of giving something in return, not just finding one indigenous person willing to do it. I'll give a non-Firaxis example of this done right. Disney used a lot of Sapmi/Saami images in Frozen II. They contacted the relevant groups and offered internships at Disney for Sapmi students as well as bringing on cultural consultants. As a result, both Disney and the Sapmi were pretty pleased with the result. I think there's a different result for Raya, which used an American team doing a lot of the art (with [East] Asian voice actors, with one exception). The result was confusing to a lot of Southeast Asians watching - here is a specific building from X era next to a specific building from Y era. Here is something that looks Dayak, and a place that feels (?) like Singapore. Here are Vietnamese hats on Lao shirts. ???

The thing about the Cree, for instance, is it was decided early, it seemed, that Poundmaker would be the leader. He WAS very conciliatory, a powerful diplomat, and big on the, "healing of his people." Thus, as is well-known in the community, Firaxis only seemed to consult Poundmaker's direct descendants, who wanted all of Cree culture portrayed as, "non-militant and seekers of harmony." However, another very popular historical among Cree (especially youth) is Ghost Warrior, who, as his name indicates, was a fiery militant leader and reactionary. Someone who just could not EXIST in the narrow portrayal Poundmaker's descendants were given the window to forge, uncontested, to portray the Cree as a whole.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The thing about the Cree, for instance, is it was decided early, it seemed, that Poundmaker would be the leader. He WAS very conciliatory, a powerful diplomat, and big on the, "healing of his people." Thus, as is well-known in the community, Firaxis only seemed to consult Poundmaker's direct descendants, who wanted all of Cree culture portrayed as, "non-militant and seekers of harmony." However, another very popular historical among Cree (especially youth) is Ghost Warrior, who, as his name indicates, was a fiery militant leader and reactionary. Someone who just could not EXIST in the narrow portrayal Poundmaker's descendants were given the window to forge, uncontested, to portray the Cree as a whole.

Considering the Haida were also found in the R&F game file, I wonder if a leader was even considered for them. Either way it's clear that they decided to go for the more peaceful route and ended up choosing Poundmaker Cree.
That being said we also got Lautaro, for the Mapuche, who sounds similar to what Ghost Warrior could have been.

 

[awesome]

Both built by European-style people (Canadians and Danish, respectively, and formerly named Frobisher Bay and Godthab, respectively), with horrible clapboard buildings and services (or lack thereof, in terms of services). Therein lies more of the problem, I fear.

Godthab was “founded” by a Danish missionary, true, but on the site of an Inuit settlement that was already there, called Nük.
And Iqaluit was definitely founded by an Inuit, on the site of an old Inuit fishing area, and the US and Canada just called it something else.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

This is "Luzia," no? The title of "oldest in the Americas" is a little contested; there's some slightly dubious remains elsewhere, and a few spots in North America that seem earlier than Luzia, and one in Chile that is possibly extremely old (Monte Verde), as well as those recently-discovered footprints in New Mexico.

The debate over Luzia's appearance is complicated. "Races", as they appear to us now, wouldn't be the same at that distance of time (recall the case of the earliest Homo sapiens remains in England having DNA that suggested dark skin and African features but blue eyes, or "Kennewick Man" who forensic anthropologists initially categorized as European but who was closer to indigenous inhabitants there today). Indeed, race as we know it is a social feature, where we focus on certain phenotypes that correspond with colonial divisions and ignore other aspects that are less historically loaded. Luzia's controversy appears to be this - some anthropologists studying her skull shape categorized her as Melanesian in appearance - Black, to our eyes today, but not African, and indicating a Pacific origin for early American settlement. Later studies focused on DNA testing, though, showed her as closer to other Paleo-Indian remains (of which there are a few around the same time in the area).

I'm an anthropologist, and have taught on these issues somewhat, although my sub-field is cultural, not biological.

 

[Henri Christophe]

This is "Luzia," no? The title of "oldest in the Americas" is a little contested; there's some slightly dubious remains elsewhere, and a few spots in North America that seem earlier than Luzia, and one in Chile that is possibly extremely old (Monte Verde), as well as those recently-discovered footprints in New Mexico.

As far my reasrch goes, this archaeological site in Monte Verde don't have humans skulls to we know their race. Just have chipped stones and some animals bones. (If I'm wrong, let me know).
If my reasearch is right, Monte Verde in Chile can be older than Brazilian's archaeological sites, but Luzia still the older human fossil of Americas.
I don't know how an archeaologist look to a skull and says it's race. But if they are saying it is black, I just trust in them.

But even if Luzia isn't the oldest of Americas, she still old enought to at least demystify the legend of the Beringer Straight theory of all humans of Americas come from Asia. At least Luzia propably come directly from Australia and arrive in a faraway place as Minas Gerais, in Brazil.

I'm an anthropologist, and have taught on these issues somewhat, although my sub-field is cultural, not biological.

My father is also an Anthropologist, he says there is a lot of Ego disputes in this field. What make it harder to know how old an archeological site is because everyone wants to say "my site is the older of Americas". And is very hard to know dates of theses sites, they use sometimes bonfire remains to date the site, but bonfire can be happens with natural interventions as thunders in the florest.

 

[Patine]

Godthab was “founded” by a Danish missionary, true, but on the site of an Inuit settlement that was already there, called Nük.
And Iqaluit was definitely founded by an Inuit, on the site of an old Inuit fishing area, and the US and Canada just called it something else.

"Settlement," was very loosely defined for seasonal hunters/fishers in a harsh environment with few amenities as known to us - or even to those cultures directly to the south of them in Pre-Colonial times.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If my reasearch is right, Monte Verde in Chile can be older than Brazilian's archaeological sites, but Luzia still the older human fossil of Americas.

It is not, Naia from Yucatan is at least 1000 years older.

I don't know how an archeaologist look to a skull and says it's race. But if they are saying it is black, I just trust in them.

"Black" is not a race there are many human population which developed darker skin tones independently, and race itself is a relative and mutable set of phenotypes.
Also SOME archealogist/anthropologist said that but OTHERS proved that Luzia fit between the morphology of recent south american natives.

Anyway the most important part is that both Luzia and Naia have native american genotype.

But even if Luzia isn't the oldest of Americas, she still old enought to at least demystify the legend of the Beringer Straight theory of all humans of Americas come from Asia. At least Luzia propably come directly from Australia and arrive in a faraway place as Minas Gerais, in Brazil.

On the contrary, extensive and broad genetic works from the last four years shows that indeed all native americans come from Asia, even if not just one event all of the migration waves either coastal or inland passed through Beringia.

My father is also an Anthropologist, he says there is a lot of Ego disputes in this field. What make it harder to know how old an archeological site is because everyone wants to say "my site is the older of Americas". And is very hard to know dates of theses sites, they use sometimes bonfire remains to date the site, but bonfire can be happens with natural interventions as thunders in the florest.

True, and this is why all the hypothesis are tested, but for this case the evidences point to the northen asiatic migrations to still be the best model by far.

 

[Henri Christophe]

On the contrary, extensive and broad genetic works from the last four years shows that indeed all native americans come from Asia, even if not just one event all of the migration waves either coastal or inland passed through Beringia.

That I must to disagree. Native Americans come also from the Pacific Ocean.
First let's look to the Mesa Verde archeological site in south Chile, how it is possible the oldest archeological site of Americas is located in deep south if all humans come from Beringher straight? If Beringher straight theory was right it should have the most ancient sites in Canada or USA. Not in Chile.

Second is not so ancient, when Europeans arrived in Panama (arround ~1500) they found black people. These black people come propably from Australia or some of the island of Melanésia. That means America and Oceania was linked with voyagers way before the arrival of Europeans.

"Black" is not a race there are many human population which developed darker skin tones independently, and race itself is a relative and mutable set of phenotypes.
Also SOME archealogist/anthropologist said that but OTHERS proved that Luzia fit between the morphology of recent south american natives.

Anyway the most important part is that both Luzia and Naia have native american genotype.

As far I know isn't possible to do DNA analyses in fossils, the DNA don't survive that much after the death of the person.
The archeologist think Luzia was a Black woman because she has big noses, big mouths, big eyes and this kind of stufs.
I think it is also impossible to know his color of skin.

 

[Patine]

Second is not so ancient, when Europeans arrived in Panama (arround ~1500) they found black people. These black people come propably from Australia or some of the island of Melanésia. That means America and Oceania was linked with voyagers way before the arrival of Europeans.

Can you please verify this one? Also, taking into account (though it never seems to jell with your modernistic, absolutist viewpoint of race by colour adjective) that such descriptives may be relative statements to recently encountered people, and not, "black," as you typically define. You often like to ignore the many and very different uses of colour adjectives for people in old literary and historic records, and assume they MUST mean exactly the same thing as the modern socio-politically-charged anthropological labels, which are usually much more recent in any such application.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Can you please verify this one? Also, taking into account (though it never seems to jell with your modernistic, absolutist viewpoint of race by colour adjective) that such descriptives may be relative statements to recently encountered people, and not, "black," as you typically define. You often like to ignore the many and very different uses of colour adjectives for people in old literary and historic records, and assume they MUST mean exactly the same thing as the modern socio-politically-charged anthropological labels, which are usually much more recent in any such application.

The first time I saw about this black community in Panamá was in the Tupac Yupanqui videos as:

This black community is called by chronist as "negros de cuarecuá"
https://www.panamaamerica.com.pa/opinion/negros-africanos-en-panama-1197859
I just find sources in Spanish, I hope you are able to read and watch it in Spanish.

The chronist tought this black community was from Africa, but nowadays historians believe is more plausible this black community was from Australia or Melanésia. Because there was a well stablished maritime route between Oceania and Americas.

 

[Patine]

The first time I saw about this black community in Panamá was in the Tupac Yupanqui videos as:

This black community is called by chronist as "negros de cuarecuá"
https://www.panamaamerica.com.pa/opinion/negros-africanos-en-panama-1197859
I just find sources in Spanish, I hope you are able to read and watch it in Spanish.

The chronist tought this black community was from Africa, but nowadays historians believe is more plausible this black community was from Australia or Melanésia. Because there was a well stablished maritime route between Oceania and Americas.

This strikes me as wistful thinking, and WANTING to believe it, and finding any straws to validate it, by you and the creators of the several links you've made that I CAN understand. But, no, I am not fluent enough in Spanish to understand this. I fully admit this.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

As far I know isn't possible to do DNA analyses in fossils, the DNA don't survive that much after the death of the person.
The archeologist think Luzia was a Black woman because she has big noses, big mouths, big eyes and this kind of stufs.
I think it is also impossible to know his color of skin.

Yes, DNA is very hard to find in fossils - but these remains are not fossils, they are bone! So DNA analysis of even ancient human remains is very possible (ancient DNA, or "aDNA"). The DNA here shows an Amerindian, not Melanesian connection. The Melanesian link was based on an artist's reconstruction, and based on a narrow skull and prognathic (projecting) mouth. https://agencia.fapesp.br/the-new-face-of-luzia-and-the-lagoa-santa-people/29168/

Skin color can at times be figured from DNA, but is variable, and isn't always a marker of genetic descent. Populations can change appearance on their own over time. But it's true that the very earliest skulls based on shape look more Australian than present-day Amerindians. There's a possible way to reconcile skulls with genetics, and this is via looking at the Jomon people of Japan - we're still talking about fishermen and seal hunters moving north from Japan and around the Strait, but people who might be different from present-day Siberian or East Asian populations.

As far as origins, I think it's likely that settlement is much older than previously thought, occurring via boat down the Alaskan coast (coastal settlement sites would be underwater now) - this would still be via the Bering Strait, not directly across the Pacific. The Beringia theory is still pretty good, but that is impossible before 12,000 years ago, and there's seeming evidence of people in the Americas before then. We could have multiple waves of people, though. Theories I'd be excited about would be a route all the way across the Pacific; you're right in that having the earliest sites in South America make this (or an Antarctic coastal route) interesting, but I'd need to see more evidence on that. There are no very ancient sites in the eastern Pacific, nor are there introduced species that humans might have brought (e.g. dogs).

Africa or Europe is unlikely (there was one guy at my former program who kept maintaining a European origin across Greenland, the Soultrean Hypothesis, which I think is very unlikely and is based on the flimsiest of archaeological data - that THESE artifacts look like THOSE artifacts).

 

[BuchiTaton]

That I must to disagree. Native Americans come also from the Pacific Ocean.
First let's look to the Mesa Verde archeological site in south Chile, how it is possible the oldest archeological site of Americas is located in deep south if all humans come from Beringher straight? If Beringher straight theory was right it should have the most ancient sites in Canada or USA. Not in Chile.

Again wrong, the human footh prints from White Sands New Mexico are 22 000 years old.

There are alot of work with prehistoric human DNA from the last decade, so is clear you are not even looking to what is know about human population of America. Same with your decades old notion of "race", sorry but you need to read about genetics instead of talk about "blacks people".

Even the supposed australoid element in south ameircan natives is now proved to come from a common ancestor to both native americans and east asians.

 

[BuchiTaton]

This strikes me as wistful thinking, and WANTING to believe it, and finding any straws to validate it, by you and the creators of the several links you've made that I CAN understand. But, no, I am not fluent enough in Spanish to understand this. I fully admit this.

El video es interesante para el público en general pero aquello que pudiera ser posible en el año 1000 d.n.e no significa que fuera un hecho hace 18000 años.

Basically the video talk about travels between Polynesia and South America that was likely between 1000 an 1500 c.e., but does not have anything related to 18000 years or older, so is like say europeans were the first in North America just because the Vikings were in Canada.

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Beringia theory is still pretty good, but that is impossible before 12,000 years ago

If @Andrew Johnson [FXS] is right to say the Beringia theory was impossible before 12 000 years ago (because the end of glacial age)

the human footh prints from White Sands New Mexico are 22 000 years old.

How it is possible footh prints of 22 000 years ago?

I still believing is more plausible to have some migrations waves directly from the pacific ocean.

 

[Patine]

If @Andrew Johnson [FXS] is right to say the Beringia theory was impossible before 12 000 years ago (because the end of glacial age)


How it is possible footh prints of 22 000 years ago?

I still believing is more plausible to have some migrations waves directly from the pacific ocean.

Except, the flaw there, is that the earliest signs of trans-oceanic, trans-island, seafaring capability of the Lapita Culture seems to go back to only 5000 or 6000 years ago, or so. FAR more recent than the Beringia migrations. You seem to be under the impression that Lapita seafaring is far older than there is is any evidence of it being. Where do you get this notion from?

 

[Henri Christophe]

Except, the flaw there, is that the earliest signs of trans-oceanic, trans-island, seafaring capability of the Lapita Culture seems to go back to only 5000 or 6000 years ago, or so. FAR more recent than the Beringia migrations. You seem to be under the impression that Lapita seafaring is far older than there is is any evidence of it being. Where do you get this notion from?

I get this notion in the fact Luzia has 13000 years old and was found in a very far away city of Lagoa Santa, in Minas Gerais - Brazil.
She is older then the estimation of 12000 years old of Beringia theory. So it's impossible to she had cross the Beringia (and all Americas) and arrive in Brazil so early.

I never heard about a minimun estimative for seafaring across the Pacific, and I tougth it's can happens earlier. Please share sources about that.

Also have the Monte Verde issue, of SOUTH Chile who can be occupied somewhere between 18500 and 14500 years ago. That make very hard to believe in Beringia theory with theses dates. But if human come by sea, that make this dates more plausible.

Of course some natives come by Beringia straight, but propably Americas was already occupied when they arrived here. And this first mens are hard to know where they come from. I most believe they come from Ocean Pacific, but we can't discard the possibility they come from Europe or even Africa.

 

[BuchiTaton]

If @Andrew Johnson [FXS] is right to say the Beringia theory was impossible before 12 000 years ago (because the end of glacial age)


How it is possible footh prints of 22 000 years ago?

I still believing is more plausible to have some migrations waves directly from the pacific ocean.

How? Impossible!
Sorry but is interesting that you see easier to cross long distances of open sea than the obvious route arond the paleo-coast.
Like Andrew pointed there are a likely link between the ancient peoples around the Pacific, from Ancient Taiwan to Japan, then Kamtchapka to Beringia, Alaska to California then the all the way south to Peru and Chile. Fishermen and seal hunters exploting the coastal population of marine mammals is a model that is way easier to explain it and better sustented by current evidence.

 

[Patine]

I get this notion in the fact Luzia has 13000 years old and was found in a very far away city of Lagoa Santa, in Minas Gerais - Brazil.
She is older then the estimation of 12000 years old of Beringia theory. So it's impossible to she had cross the Beringia (and all Americas) and arrive in Brazil so early.

I never heard about a minimun estimative for seafaring across the Pacific, and I tougth it's can happens earlier. Please share sources about that.

Also have the Monte Verde issue, of SOUTH Chile who can be occupied somewhere between 18500 and 14500 years ago. That make very hard to believe in Beringia theory with theses dates. But if human come by sea, that make this dates more plausible.

Of course some natives come by Beringia straight, but propably Americas was already occupied when they arrived here. And this first mens are hard to know where they come from. I most believe they come from Ocean Pacific, but we can't discard the possibility they come from Europe or even Africa.

Of course, you're also stuck on the notion that the Beringia crossings (and related and peripheral journeys) being at 12 000 years is a much harder-set date and more set in stone by your declarations than any paleoanthropologist or archaeologists set it firmly at. You quote the 12 000 years ago figure like a mantra to, "disprove," things you want to be as you want them, despite what you want to be makes FAR less sense. Your imposing your own desires and biases on academia, from your portrayal. And all for a, "race agenda," by quite notably and relatively recent views of the concept of race.