Japanese Ainu & Global Indigenous Groups: What Aborginal Religions are your favorite?

[Gxg (G²)]

FYI, there is a glitch that can prevent you from quoting another post or from editing your own post.

Interesting - how to end a glitch....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Q'ero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

One tribe I've greatly enjoyed is the Sun'aq Tribe of Kodiak (and those on other islands in the Kodiak Archipelago, elsewhere in Alaska and Hawai’i, in the lower 48 states, and overseas).

 

[drstevej]

I am a collector of Pueblo pottery.

This was given to me by my grandfather. It is Zia and is from the 1920s.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am a collector of Pueblo pottery.

This was given to me by my grandfather. It is Zia and is from the 1920s.

Fascinating

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am a collector of Pueblo pottery.

This was given to me by my grandfather. It is Zia and is from the 1920s.

Do you any more items from Pueblo culture?

 

[Red Fox]

Gxg (G²), I hope you will continue to post in your Native American thread in the American politics forum. I have missed it.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Gxg (G²), I hope you will continue to post in your Native American thread in the American politics forum. I have missed it.

When it comes into focus again, I'll share more. Of course, Anyone can post in that thread whenever they wish, Red - if you have anything you feel should be placed up, then post it. For now, this one and others has my focus

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Actually I am a Progressive Creationist and I don't hold to the "either or" logic that says it cannot be both young and old (more shared here and here and here and here and here /here) - and I also leaned toward Theistic Evolution. It wouldn't matter if I were a young Earth Creationists (seeing how many in Bahai are as well as well as multiple other religions) since it would have no relevance to the point I brought up earlier - the thread is primarily focused on Indigenous Groups of people/their religions and which ones posters value. One can have a separate thread on the other issues, but I don't care to take this thread into that direction...

People tend to use the term "ice-bridge" and land bridge interchangeably, depending on the context - but much in the world of science has debated the extent - and some have debated the extent of connection with Australia and New Guinea.

As another noted best:

There is no clear or accepted origin of the indigenous people of Australia. Although they migrated to Australia through Southeast Asia they are not demonstrably related to any known Asian or Polynesian population. There is evidence of genetic and linguistic interchange between Australians in the far north and the Austronesian peoples of modern-day New Guinea and the islands, but this may be the result of recent trade and intermarriage.​

Of course....
I can understand

I can get that.....

Indeed...

And on a side note, Aboriginal people are truly fascinating....and I am amazed at how extensive their culture is. Some have noted that the first Americans were actually Aborigines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seh0-_JMBuQ

Came across this amazing documentary recently on the Aborigines that I highly enjoyed and thought others here would find it fascinating...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

It was truly fascinating to learn on how certain vegetables (like the sweet potato) made it all the way to Polynesia from the Andes — nearly 400 years before Inca gold was presented before Ferdinand and Isabella's eyes...and the findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offer more evidence that ancient Polynesians may have interacted with people in South America long before the Europeans set foot on the continent.
....and ....and to see the history of the people there as well as other parts of the Polynesian Islands is truly stunning - especially their artwork

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mcliwfs6Pg

​

[/CENTER]

On a side note, there was an excellent documentary I came across which broke down some of the myths on people in the islands being savages and instead showing the ways they were extensively brilliant when it came to the ways that they stewarded the land - despite the way it was ravaged by Europeans who came over (as discussed more in-depth elsewhere, as seen here). It's byJerry Konanui,
of the film entitled Malama Haloa

 

[Gxg (G²)]

AWESOME presentation by Eru Potaka- Dewes, Dean of Atuatanga Maori Theological College Rotorua, discussing Jesus and Atuatanga

And of course, there's

 

[Gxg (G²)]

​

It was truly fascinating to learn on how certain vegetables (like the sweet potato) made it all the way to Polynesia from the Andes — nearly 400 years before Inca gold was presented before Ferdinand and Isabella's eyes...and the findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offer more evidence that ancient Polynesians may have interacted with people in South America long before the Europeans set foot on the continent.
....and ....and to see the history of the people there as well as other parts of the Polynesian Islands is truly stunning - especially their artwork

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mcliwfs6Pg

​

[/CENTER]

Came across this recently and thought it was fascinating

As said there:​

​

Scientists have suspected for a long time that Native Americans are closely related to the peoples of Altai. The theory of the Altai peoples migrating from Siberia across Chukotka and Alaska, down to the Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America, appeared almost a century ago.
​

Since then researchers have tried to prove this, and in late 2015 the famous Russian geneticist, Oleg Balanovsky, finally confirmed the theory. In addition, Dr. Balanovsky'sstudies also proved that some Native Americans have kinship with the indigenous populations of Australia.

"The current study confirms the theory that the Altai peoples are closely related to Native Americans,'' said geneticist Valery Ilyinsky at the RAS Institute of General Genetics. ''We now have clear proof, and it is useless to contest it.''

American and Siberian genes​

In 2013, two of the world's leading scientific magazines, Nature, and Science, published articles about the analysis of whole genomes in Native Americans and their Siberian cousins. A comparison was made with populations in other regions throughout the world.

The first study analyzed 48 people from Brazil. The second study analyzed 31 genomes from peoples in the U.S. and Siberia. Results from both studies confirmed that the ancestors of Native Americans left Siberia about 20,000-30,000 years ago.

n the first stage, scientists analyzed DNA samples from the Russian biobank. "Our biobank contains more than 25,000 samples from representatives of 90 nationalities in Russia and neighboring countries," Dr. Balanovsky told RBTH.

Discovering a shared history​

In the second stage, the DNA was analyzed according to various markers such as the Y chromosome that is inherited from the male line, as well as the mitochondrial DNA that is inherited from the female line, and other chromosomes that are combined from both parents.

As a result, scientists proved beyond a doubt that Native Americans are closely related to the peoples of Altai. But during the study another discovery was made.

"Besides Siberian ancestors, some Native Americans showed a puzzling relation to the indigenous peoples of Australia and Melanesia in the Pacific Ocean,'' remarked Dr. Balanovsky. "This is astounding because they are located in an almost opposite part on the planet.''​

 

[smaneck]

I would expect South Americans to have some Polynesian DNA but not Melanesian. The Polynesian connection might help explain why so many Native Americans have traditions that they came by sea. But that also might be explained by the fact that it is likely that some of the folks from Beringia traveled down the Americas by boat, rather than by land.
I'm a bit surprised that the genetic shift is thought to have happened 20-30,000 years ago. Most textbooks put the arrival of Amerind peoples at about 15,000 years ago. Hard to explain how they reached the tip of South America in only a few hundred years, by that theory however.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I would expect South Americans to have some Polynesian DNA but not Melanesian. The Polynesian connection might help explain why so many Native Americans have traditions that they came by sea. But that also might be explained by the fact that it is likely that some of the folks from Beringia traveled down the Americas by boat, rather than by land.

The concept of Turtle Island and being something others came to by sea is not inconsistent for me personally....but the Melanesian connection is intriguing. As another noted best, it's still not clear whether migration from Australia and Melanesia to the Americas was directly across the ocean, or by going up along the coast and via the Aleutian Islands - but the issue is still being investigated.'

For more information:

• Native American origins: When the DNA points two ways ...
  
  
• DNA uncovers mystery migration to the Americas - BBC News
• A DNA Search for the First Americans Links Amazon Groups to Australians: Science << Smithsonian...

As said best in one of the aforementioned articles (Smithsonian) for a brief excerpt:

​

The prevailing theory is that the first Americans arrived in a single wave, and all Native American populations today descend from this one group of adventurous founders. But now there’s a kink in that theory. The latest genetic analyses back up skeletal studies suggesting that some groups in the Amazon share a common ancestor with indigenous Australians and New Guineans. The find hints at the possibility that not one but two groups migrated across these continents to give rise to the first Americans.

“Our results suggest this working model that we had is not correct. There’s another early population that founded modern Native American populations,” says study coauthor David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard University.

The origin of the first Americans has been hotly debated for decades, and the questions of how many migratory groups crossed the land bridge, as well as how people dispersed after the crossing, continue to spark controversy. In 2008, a team studying DNA from 10,800-year-old poop concluded that a group of ancient humans in Oregon has ancestral ties to modern Native Americans. And in 2014, genetic analysis linked a 12,000-year-old skeleton found in an underwater cave in Mexico to modern Native Americans.

Genetic studies have since connected both these ancient and modern humans to ancestral populations in Eurasia, adding to the case that a single migratory surge produced the first human settlers in the Americas. Aleutian Islanders are a notable exception. They descend from a smaller second influx of Eurasians 6,000 years ago that bear a stronger resemblance to modern populations, and some Canadian tribes have been linked to a third wave.

Reich’s group had also previously found genetic evidence for a single founding migration. But while sifting through genomes from cultures in Central and South America, Pontus Skoglund, a researcher in Reich’s lab, noticed that the Suruí and Karitiana people of the Amazon had stronger ties to indigenous groups in Australasia—Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders—than to Eurasians.

Other analyses haven’t looked at Amazonian populations in depth, and genetic samples are hard to come by. So the Harvard lab teamed up with researchers in Brazil to collect more samples from Amazonian groups to investigate the matter. Together they scrutinized the genomes of 30 Native American groups in Central and South America. Using four statistical strategies, they compared the genomes to each other and to those of 197 populations from around the world. The signal persisted. Three Amazonian groups—Suruí, Karitiana and Xavante—all had more in common with Australasians than any group in Siberia.

​

Researchers mapped similarities in genes, mutations and random pieces of DNA of Central and South American tribes with other groups. Warmer colors indicate the strongest affinities. (Pontus Skoglund, Harvard Medical School)
The DNA that links these groups had to come from somewhere. Because the groups have about as much in common with Australians as they do with New Guineans, the researchers think that they all share a common ancestor that lived tens of thousands of years ago in Asia but that doesn’t otherwise persist today. One branch of this family tree moved north to Siberia, while the other spread south to New Guinea and Australia. The northern branch likely migrated across the land bridge in a separate surge from the Eurasian founders. The researchers have dubbed this hypothetical second group “Population y” for ypykuéra, or “ancestor” in Tupi, a language spoken by the Suruí and Karitiana.

When exactly Population y arrived in the Americans remains unclear—before, after or simultaneously with the first wave of Eurasians are all possibilities. Reich and his colleagues suspect the line is fairly old, and at some point along the way, Population y probably mixed with the lineage of Eurasian settlers. Amazonian tribes remain isolated from many other South American groups, so that’s probably why the signal remains strong in their DNA.




​

Also, As said best elsewhere:

The Americas were the last great frontier to be settled by humans, and their peopling remains one of the great mysteries for researchers. This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia. The competing teams, neither of which knew what the other was up to until the last minute, are still trying to reconcile and make sense of each other’s data.

“Both models … see in the Americas a subtle signal from” Australo-Melanesians, notesScience co-author David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. “A key difference is when and how it arrived in the New World.” The Nature team concludes it came in one of two early waves of migration into the continent, whereas theScience team concludes it came much later, and was unrelated to the initial peopling.

For the Science paper, nearly 4 years in the making, researchers sequenced 31 complete and 79 partial genomes from people in North and South America, Siberia, and Oceania. They compared these with previously sequenced genomes of three ancient skeletons: the 24,000-year-old Mal’ta child from Siberia, the 12,600-year-old Anzick child from Montana, and the 4000-year-old Saqqaq individual from Greenland. The team examined the genetic differences among their samples to determine how long ago various populations diverged, using the ancient genomes to calibrate this DNA clock. They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now-drowned land of Beringia. After up to 8000 years in Beringia—a slightly shorter stop than some researchers have suggested (Science, 28 February 2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago (see map, below).


Adapted from Rhagavan et al., Science



That’s a largely familiar picture of the migration, albeit with much more precise dating. But the Science team also found a surprising dash of Australo-Melanesian DNA in some living Native Americans, including those of the Aleutian Islands and the Surui people of Amazonian Brazil. Some anthropologists had previously suggested an Australo-Melanesian link. They noted that certain populations of extinct Native Americans had long, narrow skulls, resembling those of some Australo-Melanesians, and distinct from the round, broad skulls of most Native Americans. In the so-called Paleoamerican model, Walter Neves of the University of Sao Pãolo in Brazil and Mark Hubbe of Ohio State University, Columbus, argue that these people descended from an early wave of migration that was separate from the one that gave rise to today’s Native Americans, and drew on a different source population in Asia. A similar claim was made for the Kennewick Man, the iconic 8500-year-old skeleton from Washington state, but was refuted when his genome was published by this team last month: He is related only to Native Americans (see http://scim.ag/ancientone).

The Science results also counter the Paleoamerican model. When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.

So how did living South Americans get a dose of this Australo-Melanesian DNA? “A possible explanation is that the connection reflects more recent gene flow,” says Science co-lead author Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen. By that he doesn’t mean boats crossing the Pacific, as some researchers had earlier speculated. Instead, Willerslev contends that the ancestors of some of today’s South Americans might have mixed with Asian populations related to today’s Australo- Melanesians and carried those genes into the Americas during a well-established later wave of migration from Asia that also peopled the Aleutian Islands (Science, 13 January 2012, p. 158).

Hubbe, however, counters that the study could have missed telltale DNA in the ancient populations because its sample size is “extremely small.” geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and leader of the Nature team, agrees, noting that the genomes from the 17 ancient relict populations are incomplete and provide very low coverage.

His own paper also finds this mysterious Australo-Melanesian DNA in some of the same modern populations but reaches a different conclusion about its source. His team analyzed partial genome sequences of 106 Native Americans from 25 populations in Central and South America, and compared them with DNA data from 197 populations from outside the Americas. They found that some Amazonians, including the Surui people, shared about 1% to 2% of their ancestry with present-day native people from Australia, New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands. Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent genetic contribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas.
​

I'm a bit surprised that the genetic shift is thought to have happened 20-30,000 years ago. Most textbooks put the arrival of Amerind peoples at about 15,000 years ago. Hard to explain how they reached the tip of South America in only a few hundred years, by that theory however.

Definitely something to consider....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

AWESOME presentation by Eru Potaka- Dewes, Dean of Atuatanga Maori Theological College Rotorua, discussing Jesus and Atuatanga

............

And of course, there's

For anyone interested, I'd encourage others to consider Native American theology in context with maps/imagery of how the world actually was when it came to their territory. The creator of the maps (whom I'm friends with on FB) spoke on the matter and it was such a blessing. He recently did a map of the Caribbean and it was such a blessing to me...being from the West Indies in my ancestry and rarely seeing it where the Black and Indian intersections are actually addressed.

And to see the maps he has made in action:
​

And there are other maps which are astounding as well...

​

​

​

And more on the issue has been shared before on the matter, as seen here:

__________________

.....​

​

 

[Zoness]

Very interesting thread. I have some thoughts but there is a lot to process here.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Very interesting thread. I have some thoughts but there is a lot to process here.

There's no rush with anything you'd like to share on with thoughts, as there's a lot to cover. What stood out to you?

 

[Zoness]

There's no rush with anything you'd like to share on with thoughts, as there's a lot to cover. What stood out to you?

Sorry not much now, its very interesting material that I'll just continue to lurk through.

I did have one thought:

Now Before going further, in light of others who I've often heard claim that Native Americans automatically are not "Native" because of crossing the Bering Straight,

I'm not surprised Natives take offense to this idea, simply because in my personal experience it always been used as the opening defense of why it has been okay to treat Natives poorly; the line of thinking going "well they weren't truly the first people here [in the Americas] so they're no different than us". That said, I know very few Natives in person because of my geographic location in the US so maybe I am reading too much into it.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Pointing to pre-historic or ancient migrations must be the poorest line of reasoning ever conceived.
Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we are all Africans.
But even closer to our own time, almost no contemporary nation has any link (apart from genetical traces from inter-marriages) to ancestral ethnicities who settled on that specific stretch of land ten-, five-, or even three thousand years ago.

Personally, I think that land ownership is a spurious concept to begin with, but I'd always respect the lives of those living in a specific terrain.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Pointing to pre-historic or ancient migrations must be the poorest line of reasoning ever conceived.
Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we are all Africans.
But even closer to our own time, almost no contemporary nation has any link (apart from genetical traces from inter-marriages) to ancestral ethnicities who settled on that specific stretch of land ten-, five-, or even three thousand years ago.

Personally, I think that land ownership is a spurious concept to begin with, but I'd always respect the lives of those living in a specific terrain.

Are you saying this in regards to Native Americans bothered by people saying 'You were all really from this continent rather than the one you've been disenfranchised on and that you say you developed in" or in regards to simple patterns of migration noted in regards to seeing where others came from?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm not surprised Natives take offense to this idea, simply because in my personal experience it always been used as the opening defense of why it has been okay to treat Natives poorly; the line of thinking going "well they weren't truly the first people here [in the Americas] so they're no different than us". That said, I know very few Natives in person because of my geographic location in the US so maybe I am reading too much into it.

True...