Rousseau Versus Hobbes

Ah, tribal life. Which will it be now? Noble savages or short, nasty and brutish?

And it’s Leviathan for the win! The notion of the noble savage in so many ways is the most absurd of civilized man’s conceits. The truth? We are better. Civilization evolves. History moves forwards, not backwards, and it never ends. There is no need to bow down at the feet of our lessers and abase ourselves at the spectre of primitive atavism. The Hell of our slums and inner cities and wars does not in any way imply the end of the world. Instead, pitifully, this is instead the natural state of man!

In terms of history, civilized man instead is an aberration, a freak. Man, at his essence, is little more than a beast and the Social Darwinists are at least correct that historically, life has been little more than the law of the jungle. But the Social Darwinists are wrong when they say that our bestial nature is permanent. Humans can evolve, and in the past 200 years a new man, Homo Civlizationus, has arrived. May he never die out! May he always move forward, walking into the light! May he never take one step back ever again!

Tribal man as beast. Read it and weep. Long, at 51 pages, but very much worth at least a skim. Don’t read it while you’re eating!

A Look at Ainu Genetics

Here.

This excellent piece on the genetics of the Ainu shows that they are in fact very different from Japanese, Koreans, Okinawans, Chinese and in fact all other East Asians. The best explanation for this is that the Australoid Ainu are the remains of the ancient Northeast Asians before they transitioned to Mongoloids 9,000 years ago.

Lonely leaf on a long branch. Look how remarkably different the Ainu are from all other East Asians.

They are now seen as Australoids and not as Caucasians as they were erroneously thought to be for a long time. The reason they were thought to be Caucasoids is because when you cross an Australoid with a Mongoloid, you often end up with a rather Caucasoid phenotype.

An old photo of a Hokkaido Ainu man, probably from the 19th Century. Note the Caucasoid phenotype. It was this resemblance that caused people to assign them to Caucasoids, but genetic tests later disproved this. Early anthropologists said the Ainu looked like “Norwegians”.

In fact, the Ainu may be the best remnants of the ancient East Asian race which may have had its beginnings around Lake Baikal 35,000 years ago. However, we know that the Ainu are related to the Jomonese, and the Jomonese can be traced all the way back to Thailand 16,000 YBP. Around that time, it is thought that the Ainu in the form of the Murrayan people journeyed to Australia, forming one of the main components of the Aborigine people. Around this same time, they may have gone to the Philippines, for their reports that one of the very ancient Filipino groups may have had an Ainu appearance.

The Ainu are the blue triangles trailing off the right. The Okinawans are the closest to the Ainu, and even they are not that close.

Interestingly, ancient Amerindians from 9-12,000 YBP have an Australoid appearance. The skulls from 9000 YBP appear Ainuid or Polynesian and the earlier skulls line up with Negritos, Papuans and Aborigines. This implies that the ancient Northeast Asians or Siberians from around the Altai region who immigrated to North America 9-12,000 YBP may have been an Ainuid people.

The Major Races as “Typical Endpoints” of Human Evolution

Someone just asked me why the Ainu look Caucasian. They have been thought to be Caucasian, but recent research sheds doubt on that theory. What they are instead are Australoids, similar to Aborigines. The probable reason for their Caucasoid appearance is that in a number of cases, when you breed a pure Australoid with a pure Mongoloid, you do end up with a “Caucasoid” appearing phenotype. I have seen this in the Ainu, in some Cambodians and in some Pacific Islanders at the very least. There are also some Papuans and even Aborigines who look somewhat Caucasoid for whatever reason.

By the same token, many people end up looking somewhat Negroid, especially those who develop in the tropics. Idiot Afrocentrists are always claiming Melanesians, Negritos, South Indians and even some ancient Mesoamericans as “Blacks.” Racist websites say that Aborigines and Papuans are “niggers.”

What we have here is “Negroid” phenotype as a “typical endpoint” for human evolution in tropical regions. In that type of climate, a “Negroid” phenotype is favored for whatever reasons. Are these groups therefore Negroids, as racists and Afrocentrists insist? No! Of course not.

Another typical endpoint is probably “Mongoloid.” This is probably why ancient Europeans have a somewhat Mongoloid appearance, and Europeans at 30,000 YBP look more like Amerinds from the NW United States than anyone else. “Mongoloid” phenotype is simply one of the “typical endpoints” for human evolution.

The Australoid phenotype is probably another typical endpoint, though I can’t find many non-Australoids who ended up looking that way. Australoid is probably just code for the phenotype of the ancient people of Asia.

So what are we saying here? Just that given any mixture of human races, you will probably end up inevitably with four major phenotypes – Australoid, Negroid, Caucasoid or Mongoloid. There are only so many ways that a human face can possibly look, due to whatever constraints there are on the system. No matter how you mix things, human faces can probably only end up in one of those slots.

More on HBD and Blacks

Dwayne, an HBD guy, responds to my article.

I basically agree with you, Robert, on most points. Undoubtedly the slums of Lagos or Kibera, Nairobi, are tough places to live, and living there prevents people from realizing their cognitive potential. In terms of IQ, U.S. blacks benefit not only from genetic admixture with whites, but also from better nutrition, schools, intellectual stimuli, etc.

A few clarifications: I’m using the IQ numbers from Lynn and Vanhanen, which 2 or 3 points off whatever numbers you are using.

I’m curious to learn of the source for the African immigrants-107-IQ figure. Immigrants are not required to take IQ tests upon arrival in the US. Most recent African immigrants are refugees from places like Somalia, Eritrea and the DR of Congo. It seems like their IQ;s would be about the same as the IQ’s of people in general in those countries. Can you provide a link?

The link between MAO-A allele frequency and aggressive behavior is made by: Lea R, Chambers G (2007). “Monoamine oxidase, addiction, and the “warrior” gene hypothesis”. N. Z. Med. J. 120 (1250): U2441. PMID 17339897. They show the gene is more common amongst Maori, which, of course, is one of those “hate facts” a commentator thinks is “appalling”.

As far as the aggressiveness of blacks is concerned, the rates for violent crime convictions (which approximately match data from FBI victim surveys) have always shown that blacks commit murder and assault at much higher rates than do all other races.

The violence hierarchy seems to be blacks > Hispanics > whites > Asians (which, interestingly, is the exact inverse of the intelligence hierarchy). Taking whites as a baseline, the numbers are 7.5 > 3 > 1 > 0.25. The data comes from the FBI.

Tulio’s question as to the correlation of socioeconomic status and IQ for blacks is answered by the following graph

There are not that many African refugees coming here other than a few from Somalia. They are far outnumbered by the “Kenyan with a Master’s Degree” type. The numbers are out there on the Net and they are not controversial. African immigrants are also the most successful group. But we hardly let any of them in. The tests of African immigrants were done after they were settled in the US. African immigrants also have the highest rate of advanced degrees of any immigrants.

The warrior gene study was done on Maoris! Not on Blacks. You said it was associated with violence in Blacks. This is apparently not so.

Crime statistics are as good a measure of Black violence as any, I suppose.

Even if African IQ is baseline 70, Caribbean IQ with 9% White admixture is ~72. No way can you get US Black IQ of 87 with 15% White admixture and an IQ of 70. You get IQ of 74.5, and you still have 12.5 points unexplained. You stated that the difference is mostly due to White admixture, and that’s not true. 75% of the difference cannot be explained by White admixture.

As I posted previously, there is good evidence that US Blacks have been genetically selecting for higher IQ for the since ~1900 or so. We know this via an examination of Black skulls from the modern era versus Black skulls from colonial times. Modern Black skulls look more like modern White skulls than they look like the skulls of their own Black ancestors. And modern White skulls look more like modern Black skulls than they look like their own White ancestors. Here in America, the Black and White races are actually merging in a sense.

One wonders what is driving the changes in Black skulls towards a larger size and a more progressive phenotype. Part of the change appeared to be due to nutrition, but much of it was also genetic. So Blacks have been selecting for a more progressive phenotype since 1900, which also has a higher IQ for whatever reasons. Why Blacks have been selecting like this is not known, but one can come up with some theories.

Everyone assumes that Blacks are more impulsive than other races. Fine, can we have some studies showing this, if impulsiveness can actually be measured.

I don’t agree that Blacks are more violent than all other races. I believe that Aborigines and Papuans are also pretty violent.

The Black > Hispanic > White > Asian crime rate paradigm works well in the US, but it tends to fall apart as one moves down to Latin America. Latin America seems to have the highest violent crime rate on Earth. Therefore, on a global scale, Hispanics, who are mostly Mestizos, seem to be the most violent race of all.

Early Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Africa

From the study of skulls we can learn what early humans in Africa looked like. By early humans, I mean modern man, not earlier types.

Very early skulls from Africa resemble either Khoisans or no living type. Some Khoisan type skulls (broadly defined) can be found going back as far as 90,000 years. Boskopoid skulls from 35-50,000 YBP seem to look like Khoisan (Mirazón Lahr,p. 282). Early Kenyan skulls look also look Khoisan.

Negroes appear in the fossil record in Congo, Mali, Niger and Chad from 6,000-12,000 YBP. They develop in the course of agriculture as Khoisan and Pygmy types gathered into agricultural villages in the regions above. In hunter-gatherer societies, women need men and marry early, hence there is little competition for females and every man gets a woman. In African agricultural societies, there was plenty of food, and women no longer needed a man to provide for them.

Since women no longer needed men, women got picky. Extreme competition for women developed among men, and one man or a small group of men tended to monopolize the women. This is the “chief” syndrome also seen in primitive agricultural societies in New Guinea.

Extreme competition led to the largest, strongest and most aggressive males dominating the group and preferentially passing on their genes. Hence, Negroes developed into big, strong, good athletes with high testosterone which drove high aggression. This is one theory for high Black crime rates.

In contrast, Pygmies are not aggressive at all, and tend to be rather meek and shy. Khoisan have low testosterone and have low levels of overt aggression.

Nilotics appear in Kenya 8-12,000 YBP. Originally, when these Nilotic skulls were first found, they were mistaken for Europeans. These are the classic “Horner” types of the Horn of Africa. It is amazing that Nilotics would be mistaken for Europeans, but they do have a more Caucasian look to them.

Recent Sub Saharan Africans have skulls that are more gracile than Europeans (ibid. p. 283), so it is a lie to say that Blacks have primitive or robust skulls.

The only really robust or primitive skulls nowadays in the study were found in Australians (65% are robust), Pantagonians, the Ainu and 1 Polynesian. This largely lines up with the Australoid racial group, which developed in a robust fashion for some reason.

The most gracile skulls were 13 E Asians, 13 SS Africans, 11 SE Asians, 7 Europeans, 1 Inuit, 1 S Asian and 1 Australian. So we can see that the most modern and gracile skulls are found in Blacks and Asians. Europeans are also modern and gracile, but not so much as the others. We also see that while Australians generally have the most robust skulls on Earth, some Aborigines have very gracile skulls. Australians are best seen as an extreme mixture.

Why did man leave Africa, and which route did he take? The reason for leaving was apparently a terrible drought in East Africa. For instance, between 135,000 and 75,000 years ago, East African droughts shrunk the water volume of  Lake Malawi by at least 95%, causing migration out of Africa.

Which route did they take? Researchers say their study of the tribes of Andaman and Nicobar islands using complete mitochondrial DNA sequences and its comparison those of world populations has led to the theory of a “southern coastal route” of migration from East Africa through India. They took the Indian Ocean coastal route.

References

Mirazón Lahr, Marta. 1996. The Evolution of Modern Human Diversity: A Study of Cranial Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

White Gangbangers in Argentina

Here.

Click on the photo album to see more of these idiots acting all tough and throwing gang signs. They are from Cordoba, Argentina, which is in the west of Argentina. Known from growing wine grapes, relatively dry climate in the rain shadow of the Andes. These folks look like Whites, which seemed strange to me. An Argentine friend of mine told me that they were typical Argentine mestizos. If that is so, then your Argentine mestizo looks awfully damned White.

I knew that Hispanic-Black US gang culture was spreading to other areas, particularly mestizo and Indian populations in Latin America and I believe Black and mulatto populations in the Caribbean. I have also seen pics of Filipinos and Negritos in the Philippines who have adopted US gang culture. There are some Australian Aborigines and Polynesians who have adopted it too. The Polynesians like to imitate US Black culture, possibly because they feel closer to Blacks. In gang fights at LA schools, the Samoans would always line up with the Blacks.

If you have any information on other regions where US gang culture is spreading, please let us know in the comments. I guess this is one of the only products were are exporting anymore.

The Difference Between Phenotypical Race and Genetic Race

A commenter asks me some questions about my races of man post.

I believe that a bit more changes are necessary to be made to the race classifications you have here Robert. I believe that the Garos, Nicobarese, Negritos (Orang Asli, Semang, Aeta, Senoi, etc.), Melanesians, Micronesians, and possibly Ainus should be classed as Australoid.

Now, hear me out if you will: They have mixed to varying degrees with Mongoloids, but still maintain Australoid appearances, so it is nonsensical (I believe) to class them as Mongoloid simply due to some Mongoloid admixture.

I also believe that a separate “mixed-race” macro category (or “non-classifiable”) category should be made for those in your categories who are of mixed-race. Caucasoid-Mongoloid: Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara. Caucasoid-Negroid: Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers (all Berbers shouldn’t be classed as belonging to one macro race).

And those certain Pacific Islanders, be they Melanesians or Micronesian, who are obviously a Australoid-Mongoloid mixture.

The Nepalese are a mixture of Indo-Aryans from India as well as Mongoloid groups from the Himalayas (so they are a Caucasoid-Mongoloid mixture).

The Ainus have mixed with the Mongoloid Japanese due to promoted miscegenation by the Japanese government, so many Ainus now have Mongoloid genes, but I still think that they are distinct enough from Mongoloids to be possibly classed as Australoid (which you yourself have called them).

I thank the poster for his input.

The problem here is that the poster is confusing phenotypical race with genetic race. The races of man post dealt only with genetic race, using Cavalli-Sforza as a template and then expanding from there. The problem is that genetic race often does not line up with phenotypical race. For instance, some types are Australoid by phenotype, but not by genes. Only the Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines seem to fall into an Australoid race by genes.

The Garos are similar to other groups in the far east of India such as the Naga. The Nicobarese are very strange, but the general idea is that they are just archaic SE Asian types, migrated down from Yunnan Province in China maybe 5000 YBP with some of the original Austroasiatic speakers.

I have no genetic data on the Orang Asli or the Senoi. The Senoi at least are certainly Australoid by phenotype. Once again, these are ancient Proto-Malay early Austroasiatic types migrated down from Yunnan 5000 YBP or so. The Orang Asli are some of the original people of the planet outside of Africa, but are they phenotypically Australoid?

The Aeta are phenotypically Australoid, yes, but genetically, they are closer to Filipinos than to anyone else.

Melanesians and Micronesians genetically fit into a nice little category within the Oceanians of the SE Asian race even though they have some Australoid mix – the Melanesians much more than the Micronesians.

A mixed race macro-race of some sort did not make sense to me in terms of a rational classification, though I did think about it. Some groups are just too recent to be classified at all, such as Hispanic mestizos and mulattos.

For groups like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Uighurs, Tatars, and Hazara, I had to look up percentages of Asian and Caucasian. If they were a bit more Caucasian, they went into Caucasian. If they were more Asian, they went into Asian. Groups for which I had no data were not listed. It was scatter-shot, but I could not think of anything else to do.

For the Djiboutians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Bejas, Somalis, Ethiopians, and certain mixed-race Berbers, I did try to fit most of these into some race or another. However, I will agree with you here that I may need a new category. I have long contemplated a sort of Horner Major Race, splitting the Horners off from the rest of the Africans. The Horners are just too different from the rest of the Africans. They are about 1/2 way between Africans and Caucasians.

I realize that the Berbers are a mess, but there was not much I could do with them, and I don’t want to make a major race out of them. Sometimes you just have to improvise.

The Nepalese fit well into Caucasian on most charts. Granted, they are some of the most diverse Caucasians out there, but so are the Indians for that matter.

Although the Ainu are phenotypically Australoid, genetically they are quite close to the Japanese and the Koreans, so it makes sense to call them NE Asians genetically.

An Anatolian Homeland For Indo-European?

That may be, but the part about “proto-Europeans” coming from the Lower Volga is bullshit. All archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, and genetic evidence (not to mention, evidence from indigenous pagan religions/mythologies) point to an Anatolian origin of the Indo-Europeans.

During the LGM, European hunter-gatherer groups gathered in some refugia in South Central Europe (Iberia, Western Balkans, Ukraine…) Northern Europe was almost entirely covered in glacier, as were the Alps, Caucasus, Pyrenees, and other major mountain ranges.

After the LGM, the scant remnant of Upper Paleolithic survivors moved back north, but Southern Europe was depopulated, only to be repopulated again by Near Eastern agriculturalists at the dawn of the Neolithic. These agro-pastoralists from the Anatolian-Levantine refugium brought farming, livestock, and copper to Europe. Among the earliest farmers were the Anatolian proto-Indo-Europeans.

The Basques are probably remnants of the Mesolithic survivor population. The purest descendants of these Near Eastern settlers are the Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians -also the Turks, who inhabit the PIE origin land – ironically Turks, who speak a non-Indo-European Altaic language, are probably more Indo-European than most Indo-European speakers, especially Brits or Indians.)

Of course, there were other migrations around that time. A people closely related to the Mongols expanded westward across Siberia, over the Urals and into Scandinavia, following the deglaciation. They introduced Uralic languages (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian, Lappish) into Europe, and the Lapps are their most direct descendants.

But we have strong reason to believe that Indo-European spread from the Near East (most likely North-Central Anatolia) chiefly due to agriculture, not from Western Europe (as some White Nationalists might believe) or from India/Pakistan (as many Hindu nationalists believe) or from Gimbutas’ fanciful Kurgan patriarchs (which Wikipedia deems as “official” and which you appear to take for granted).

[Actually, it surprises me that so many people take for granted some nutty hypothesis proposed by the Marxist-feminist Jewess Marija Gimbutas despite the lack of evidence or historical precedent. At least the Paleolithic Continuity Model is based on some evidence (albeit misinterpreted) and the Out-of-India hypothesis is based on understandable wishful thinking.]

Consider the following:

* As per your own model, virtually all Europeans cluster closely with each other and with Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. Basques, North Africans, Arabs, and “West Asians” (i.e. Afghans) are minor outliers.

This interrelatedness suggests a strong demic diffusion and also implies that the stat that Europeans are 80% Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic remnants but only 20% Neolithic colonists is considerably off. How else do you explain that Europeans are generally closer to Iranians than to Basques?

* While Indo-Europeans are/were indeed fairly heavily male-dominated (Gimbutas was at least correct about this), this follows from a Near Eastern origin, as the Middle East was, and still is, very patriarchal. Ironically, Gimbutas located the homeland of those “evil patriarchal invaders” who decimated the “feminist utopia” that neolithic European society (allegedly) was in Scythia, which is believed to be the source of the Amazon legends…

* Indo-European languages show relatively strong affinities to Semitic languages, and probably Kartvelian and Pelasgian languages (the latter may have actually been Indo-European, related to Hittite), possibly Ligurian (probably Indo-European and related to both Celtic and Italic languages), and even Etruscan (controversially). No such closeness to Iberian (Basque), Ural-Altaic, or Dravidian languages.

* The oldest evidence of Indo-European languages comes from Anatolia (Hittite) and the Aegean (Greek in Linear B). Minoan (in Linear A) remains undeciphered and may have been related. Archaeological records demonstrate a settled native population.

* Even the pagan religions seem to cluster near the Anatolian centre. Zoroastrianism and the Indic religions both descend from the Indo-Aryan religion, but the Persian religion is more similar to ancient European religious traditions than the Dharmic faiths are (because Hinduism absorbed some Harappan/Dravidian pre-Aryan influences.)

Greco-Roman and Germanic religions were more alike than either was akin to Celtic (Druidic) paganism, the Celts being more matriarchal and probably influenced by relatives of the Basques in Western Europe and the British Isles.

All this points to an origin for Indo-European in Neolithic Anatolia, but you ae probably correct that the Aryans (Indo-Iranians, not blonde Germanic supermen) came into Iran and India via Central Asia. Most likely route being a clockwise migration around the Caspian Sea…

Excellent commentary, fascinating stuff.

I actually agree with an Anatolian homeland for PIE, however, I also agree with a secondary spread from the Lower Volga. So, things are complicated. In fact, I argue that Indo-European is actually Indo-Hittite, with Anatolian being so far removed from the rest that it is actually a sister to the rest of the family. Just a look at Hittite shows you how archaic it is compared to the rest of the family.

The part about the Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Armenians, and at least some Italians being the remnants of the original IE people is probably true. So, in a sense, these are really the “original Whites.” Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Nordicists.

Gimbutas’ theory has always ween a bit nutty. There were no ancient matriarchies. As a female friend once said, men have always ruled. Why? She answered, “Men are bigger, men are stronger, men push women around and make them do what they want them to do.” Well, of course, and women are too weak to fight back.

As it is now, as it’s always been. In gender relations, it’s the law of the jungle. I also feel that matriarchies might have been inherently unstable, as I’m not sure that “female rule” works very well. We are having enough problems with what matriarchy we have in the West.

Patriarchy or male rule is sort of a bad deal for women, but at least it seems to “work.” And I have noticed that women from patriarchal cultures seem to be happiest in their femininity and in general. The men are masculine, the women are feminine, and everyone’s happy.

The more women rule, the more miserable women seem to be, and men never seem to be happy under female rule. For one thing, oddly enough, female rule tends to make women act masculine and men act feminine. Neither is a normal role model, and I argue that the more masculine a woman is, the more unhappy she is, and the more feminine a man is, the more unhappy he is. That ‘s possibly because they are violating nature itself. When you do that, nature fights back, possibly by making you miserable.

Surely IE is related to Afro-Asiatic and Kartvelian, but I disagree that it is less related to Uralic or Altaic, and I also disagree that Uralic and Altaic represent some family. Ligurian and Pelasgian are probably IE, but no one knows what Etruscan is.

I definitely agree that almost all Europeans are quite close to Persians, Kurds, Caucasus folks, Jews, Turks, and some Semitic-speaking Levantines. It is interesting how close the Caucasians are to each other. Most Caucasians are much closer to each other than other major races are. There is much larger differentiation among NE and SE Asians, Aborigines, Papuans and for sure Africans than there is among Caucasians.

A lot of the rest of the post is rather over my head.

All around, a great comment. The rest of you may feel free to chime in if you have any thoughts or anything to add.

Changes to Races of Man Post

I made a few changes to my Major and Minor Race of Man Post.

On the suggestion of a commenter, I decided to make a whole new macro race, the Australoid Macro Race. I now have 4 macro races instead of 3:

Caucasian Macro Race

Asian Macro Race

African Macro Race

Australoid Macro Race

It’s surely justified genetically. The Australoid race would consist, genetically, of Papuans and Aborigines. Both are so far away from all of the other races in terms of genes that they definitely deserve their own race. I originally had them in with Asians because people say that Australoids are actually Asians in some vast sense. While that may be possible, their genes are so far off the chart, that it makes sense to split them off.

With the addition of the two Andaman Islander major races, I know have 11 major races. They are:

Caucasian Major Race

Kalash Major Race

Northeast Asian Major Race

Amerindian Major Race

Southeast Asian Major Race

Oceanian Major Race

Australian Major Race

Papuan Major Race

Greater Andamanese Major Race

Onge Major Race

African Major Race

To be honest, I am thinking of splitting off Horners from the Horn of Africa into a major race also. They are extremely different from the rest of Africans. They are best seen as a special race that is approximately halfway between Africans and Caucasians.

I also added the Onge Andaman Islanders and the Greater Andaman Islanders to the Australoids.

Here is how the new major race lines up. ***means they are very far from other races.

Australoid Macro Race

Australian Major Race***

General Australian Aborigine Major Race***

Queensland Aborigine Race***

Western Territory Pama-Nguyan Aborigine Race***

Papuan Major Race***

General Papuan Race***

Motu Papuan Race***

Sepik-Ramu Papuan Race***

Greater Andaman Islands Major Race***

Greater Andaman Islands Negrito Race***

Onge Andaman Islands Major Race***

Onge Andaman Islands Negrito Race***

There are groups who are Australoids on skulls, but not on genes. The Melanesians have Australoid, but they have Oceanian genes. Most Negritos have Australoid skulls but Southeast Asian genes. The Ainu have Australoid skulls, but they also have Northeast Asian genes. The Tamils have Australoid skulls but Caucasian genes.

None of those groups can be logically put into an Australoid genetic race.

The Onge and the Andaman Islanders have some of the most divergent genes on Earth. Each one forms its own separate branch on the human genetic tree. How far apart they are from the rest, I am not sure, but surely they are quite distant. After all, the first split out of Africa was to the Andaman Islanders. The second split was to the Orang Asli and the Mani Negritos in Thailand.

Is There An Australoid Race?

New commenter Nikephoros, from Colombia, an antiracist type who I suspect is also a race-denier, comments:

NP: Then SE Asians are “Australoid” right to this day. SE Asians don’t differ craniometrically too much from Papuans or the more gracile Australian types.

RL: I am not sure I agree with that. Studies of Vietnamese skulls clearly show that there are different types, with the ancient Melanesian skulls slowly changing and becoming more Oriental, eventually trending over the last 2,300 years towards the true SE Asian type. The Melanesian type seems completely phased out 2,3000 YBP.

And there is a set of skulls that pools together as Australoid – Tamils, Indian tribals, Negritos, Senoi, Melanesians, Ainu, Papuans, Aborigines and some Amerindians.

My understanding is that SE Asians proper are definitely not a part of this group. They are more progressive and less archaic.

NP: Do you have any link to those studies? SE Asians skulls seem to cover all the range from “Mongoloid” to “Australoid”, with most falling somewhere in between. Also so-called Australoids are a quite diverse group when it comes to cranial morphology.

If you go to George Weber’s site, you will see that Fuegians, the Pericu and the ancient skulls of the Americas plot with Aborigines, Melanesians, Papuans, Ainu and Negritos. I would call that group something like Australoids.

A traditional Ainu couple.

A Vietnamese paleoanthropologist characterized Vietnamese fossils. To him, there was a clear progression from Australoid or Melanesian (20,000 YBP) to SE Asian of today, with a lot of classic Oriental type input from China to the north.

A Melanesian man with blond hair. This was the dominant type in Vietnam until 2,200 YBP.

A classic Vietnamese type. What a cutie!

I don’t think many SE Asians look Australoid, unless you include Negritos, Senoi, and some East Indonesians, but those Indonesians are really Melanesians.

This paper shows that the Semang Negritos and Senoi of Thailand cluster with the Tamils, coastal New Guinea (Melanesians) and the Andaman Island Negritos. That looks like an “Australoid” type grouping to me.

A Dravidian from India with Australoid features. Before 10,000 YBP, Indians looked like Aborigines.

An Andaman Islands Negrito from the Jarawa group.

Melanesian teeth are very different from SE Asian teeth. SE Asian teeth are halfway between Melanesian teeth (Australoid) and NE Asian Sinodont teeth. This implies that SE Asians are halfway between Australoids and classic Mongoloids (NE Asians).

The ancient skulls from Thailand – Tabon, Niah, Gua Gunung – all look like Aborigines or Melanesians. Notice it says Aborigines or Melanesians. So there are similarities between the groups.

Australoid race: Aborigines, Papuans, Melanesians, Negritos, Ainu, Fuegians, Pericu, Tamils other Vedda and tribal types and ancient Amerindians.

A Papuan dude with some funky bones in his nose. This man looks almost Polynesian, but then Polynesians have a Papuan component via Melanesians.

Sure, it’s kind of a messy group, but it’s good enough for me and it seems to have some basis.

I also don’t have any problem with a Mongoloid race that includes SE Asians and NE Asians, with exceptions for Ainu, Negritos, Senoi and East Indonesians.