Talk:Luzia Woman

Solutrean hypothesis

I'm glad someone finally created an article about Luzia. However, the Solutrean hypothesis does not address African migrations to South America. Twalls (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Hey thanks Twalls! I appreciate the observation (don't know what I was thinking). I would like to keep a reference in on the Solutrean Hypothesis, just to give it some coverage, so I reworded the paragraph. I hope this does the trick. Firecircle (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, it looks fine to me. Thanks! I've gone to a few other articles mentioning Luzia and added the Wikilink to this article. Twalls (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks a million for adding the other links to the article, Twalls. You did good. Firecircle (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it. There are surely still more to do. We should probably add a redirect/disambiguation page as well. Twalls (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I'm fairly new to this: my redirects don't work, and I don't know the function of a disambiguation page. Can you do it? Firecircle (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Firecircle (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC) I'm learning that if something in the text is colored red, it indicates an error. Seeing this, I corrected all the access dates to the correct format (they turned blue). Firecircle (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that someone removed the refutation of the Solutrean Hypothesis. Since it does not relate directly to the fossile known as Luzia, I was planning on removing it. As it stands now, I am leaving it up to you whether to keep that reference or not. Firecircle (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed a couple of sentences that looked like unreferenced speculation (original research in other words) in the Solutrean paragraph. (pretty unlikely now if the recent stuff on genetics is correct anyway).--Doug Weller (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's help on this article. I probably shouldn't have ever introduced the Solutrean Hypothesis, but being a "diffusionist" at heart I just went overboard. Thanks again for the help. Firecircle (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Date

Is that date radiocarbon years, or calibrated? 75.161.129.54 (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Amerindian

Why is Luzia called Paleo-Indian if she is not an ancestor to the Amerindians? --Oddeivind (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I guess they did not want to just say black, African or negroid/negrito.--24.91.26.152 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Begging the question - the article does not say she is not an ancestor to 'the Amerindians'. The article gives sources that say she is paleo-Indian. But I think I've noticed another problem with the article, I'll have to look into it to see if it is a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If she and others like her were in the Americas then they could be part of the ancestry of some Amerindians. Some of the different bands of peoples coming into the Americas could have had a diverse mix of members. Also if someone from Africa or Europe were to wash up in the Americas at some point in the past and marry into a group of indigenous people, and they had kids, they would technically from then on be part of the ancestry of some members of the group from that point forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.211.103 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are Indians called "Indians"? That seems as inaccurate. Besides, the proportions of her facial features does not prove her ancestry. Kortoso (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Indians call themselves Indians, we shouldn't be trying to change how they self-identify. And there's no reason to think she isn't an ancestor to the Indians. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article has been updated with latest data results of DNA sequencing and they have matched her DNA with other paleo-Indian samples such as Anzick Boy in North America. It also updated the cranial measurement theory that associated her appearance with Malenesians and Australian Aborigines as being a superficial assumption and not rooted in the DNA evidence.--47.154.81.208 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Luzio"?

Is this "Luzio" the same as our "Luzia"? http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0023962

That says "Previously, an ancient Paleoamerican female skeleton was found in the Planalto Central region of Lagoa Santa. She was named Luzia, the first American [7]. Because our male skeleton showed morphological similarities with Luzia, he was called Luzio. Indeed, Luzio has morphologic affinities with Luzia based on craniometric analysis". Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Another "Luzia" in Peru

Many years ago I came across the exactly same "Luzia-like" skull in a coastal excavation in Peru. It was a skull with a prominent line dividing the skull by half, very different from other paleoamerican skulls. If interested, leave your email and I can send you exact GPS coordinates for investigation, hoping the skull is still there for someone to rediscover.

Any DNA evidence?

Given that the skull has been known for years, you'd think someone would have at least tried by now. 173.173.20.99 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Italicisation of researchers' names /inserting Neves's middle name

Hi 188.108.231.111. Can you point to anywhere in MOS:ITAL or MOS:ITALIC where it says that we should italicise people's names? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

188.108.231.111, please stop simply reverting and discuss this. You are italicising the names of researchers, which we don't do, and you are changing Walter Neves's name to Walter Alves Neves. That is his middle name, but from looking at articles linked to from the University of Sao Paolo such as this, this, this, this and this, he is more generally known as Walter Neves, without the middle name. Please stop this disruptive reverting and discuss why you want to make the changes to badly. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• 3DSkull.png
• Luzia.jpg
• LuziaRecomposition.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Problematic Conclusions

"In November 2018, scientists of the University of São Paulo and Harvard University released a study that contradicts the alleged Australo-Melanesian origin of Luzia. The results showed that Luzia was entirely Amerindian, genetically.[23]" The problem with that conclusion is that it not based on the facts. You cannot prove the dna of 1 mummy over here, by proving the dna of 2 mummies over there. Luzia's dna has not been tested, so it is impossible that "The results showed that Luzia was entirely Amerindian, genetically". Now she may be 'entirely Amerindian, genetically', however that's not what the evidence shows. "Lagoa Santa remains from a site nearby to the Luzia remains carry DNA regarded as Native American." Genetic testing by proxy? 83.84.100.133 (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure by what you mean that Luzia's DNA has not been tested. That's what the article in the main page said it was her DNA and that it was sequentially similar to other paleo fossils like Anzick Boy in North America.--47.154.81.208 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)