Are Blacks Closer to Apes Than Other Humans?

Justin writes:

Since Khosians lie at the root of modern humanity, are they more closely related to apes than the races that followed? I’m serious. Africans have features like flatter faces and noses, flared nostrils, big lips, etc which make them look more like more like Mighty Joe Young than Paddy the Irishman.

You can pick any black out of a crowd in America, strip ‘em of his clothes and place him in a jungle and he’d look right at home. Just give him a spear and wish him good luck.

Whether or not Khoisans are closer to apes than other races of humanity is not known.

Whether or not Blacks are closer to apes than other races of humanity is very controversial. There is a book out called Erectus Among Us by a virulent racist named Richard Fuerle that makes the case for this. His argument is that Blacks are actually a separate species, a vestigial Homo Erectus. As far as his Homo Erectus argument, the general agreement is that Blacks are Homo Sapiens sapiens, just like all the rest of us. Fuerle’s argument that Blacks are Homo Erectus is completely specious.

I am uncertain of the evidence he presents that Blacks are more ape-like (he does present a lot of evidence for this case), as the studies he references are mostly very old, from the early racist era of US history. It’s not an issue that is likely to be looked into soon in this era of political correctness.

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

Racial Transitions in Human Prehistory

A commenter asks:

“Then Taiwan aborigines transition to Mongoloid over the next 3000 years. Probably a similar transition occurred in the Philippines, as the Ami in the Philippines slowly turned into Mongoloids along with the rest of SE Asia.”

Interesting, hey Robert has this kind of “Transition” ever happened anywhere else in the world around the same period of time?

Khoisan transitioned from earlier types 90,000 YBP.

Khoisans transitioned to Pygmy types 50,000 YBP.

Europeans transitioned from proto-Masai types 40,000 YBP to proto-NW American Amerindian types 30,000 YBP to proto-Arabids at 12,000 YBP to modern Europeans.

Aborigines transitioned from earlier types to proto-Ainu types 18,000 YBP to the modern Aborigine 13,000 YBP.

Pygmies and Khoisan transitioned to Negroids in the Sahel from 12,000-6,000 YBP.

Amerindians transitioned from Australoids like Fuegians at 12,000 YBP to proto-Polynesian types resembling Maori like Kennewick Man at 9,000 YBP to modern Amerindians later on.

NE Asians transitioned from proto-Ainu Australoid types to modern NE Asians 9,000 YBP.

East Indians transitioned from Aborigine-type Australoids to Caucasians 8,000 YBP.

Flaws in the Genetic View of Racial Behavior

As you can see in this horrible article, Blacks in Zaire*, including all parties in the war there, think it’s pretty cool to kill Pygmies and eat them for food. They’ve even set of Pygmy Meat stalls in the local market so you can pick out the choice cuts for yourself and save yourself a Human Hunting Expedition.

The article is six years old, but I understand that this behavior is ongoing. This is part of a long-standing slow-motion genocide against the Pygmies that the Bantus have been waging against them since they conquered them 2,000 years ago. Bantus have also been slo-mo genociding the Khoisan in Southwest Africa for about 800 years ago. That’s also ongoing in places like Botswana.

Blacks in West Africa have also been eating their enemies in the recent wars there. It seems to be sort of an Africanism to eat your enemies in wartime. Actually, this is common tribal behavior not just in Africa but in New Guinea, the Philippines, Polynesia, Melanesia, the Amazon and probably other places.

White nationalists on sites like American Renaissance love articles like this and always use them to point out the innate depravity of Blacks. I think this theory is in error. Perhaps if you want to make a case for the innate depravity of African Blacks, you might be on slightly better grounds, but even there, the theory would probably bite the dust.

A good example of why theory is flawed can be seen in US Blacks. Racist posters on Amren are always talking about how American Blacks “would probably try to eat you” after they killed you in some street crime assault.

This is faulty thinking because it conflates US Blacks with African Blacks and assumes that the behavior of both is identical because it is genetically encoded.

But as much as we complain about US Blacks here, but they don’t do stuff like those below, and they probably never will.

But if US Blacks had never come to the US and were still in Africa, they would probably still be running around:

1. Consuming other humans in backyard barbecue get-togethers,

2. Slaughtering each other by the millions in insane, cruel and stupid wars,

3. Killing other humans to cook up their body parts as voodoo recipes,

4. Burning witches,

5. Launching pogroms against albinos,

6. And all sorts of other charming and highly evolved behaviors.

It’s not only US Blacks, but all Blacks in the West that don’t do this stuff, including Blacks in the Caribbean and South America.

But as I’ve noted, the Western Hemisphere Blacks would probably be doing all this sick stuff if they were still back in Africa. Why? Because that’s what Blacks do in Africa. And why don’t they do it here? Because Blacks in the Western Hemisphere have lost a lot of their African traditions and have become culturally a part of Western Hemisphere cultures instead. So, the reason US Blacks don’t do 1-6 above is because they are Americans, and Americans don’t do things like that.

Have they genetically changed in America, and is this the reason they don’t do these things? Probably not. But they have culturally changed, and that culture change has been so long-lasting that behaviors like 1-6 above have been wiped out in the US for centuries.

Using this behavior as an argument for the innate depravity of Africans is also difficult. Because quite a few of the folks doing 1-6 above will quit doing it at some point if you take them out of Africa and put them in, say, the Western Hemisphere.

Racialists are always bashing culture, but it’s much more important than you think. They bash culture at their peril.

*The Blacks in Zaire cannibalizing the Pygmies include many Rwandans also. There’ also a long tradition of cannabalism in the Congo, dating back centuries.

Whites Made The First Maps and Other Nonsense

The White nationalist crazies are all in a flutter over the latest news out of Spain. In a cave, a stone tablet has been found with what may be the world’s oldest map on it. The WN’s, as usual, are huffing and puffing about how this is evidence that Whites made the first maps.

There are problems with this analysis. The first is that the folks living in Spain 14,000 were first of all not ancestral to modern day Europeans. Second of all, they did not look like modern day Europeans. Instead, they looked more like Arabs and their DNA resembles modern-day Arabs more than any other race.

The White race only goes back maybe 9000 years or so anyway. It’s well documented that the folks living in Europe around 12000 YBP looked like Arabs and their DNA looked like the DNA of modern day Arabs. We know what they looked like by looking at skulls. White skin only goes back about 10,000 YBP and blond hair, red hair and blue eyes about 9000 YBP. Those are all just recent mutations. European Whites as we know them today are a new model.

It’s not that these people were Arabs, they were sort of like proto-Arabs.

White nationalists counter that “White mummies” have been found in China at 9000 YBP.

The reference is to the Tarim mummies. The Tarim mummies do not go back 9000 yrs in China. More like 3-4000 YBP. Anyway, those are Tocharian speakers, who are Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans are some of the real Whites who moved into Europe and really “Whitened” the place up.

The White European race we know today (and the Caucasian race in the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India is largely an IE legacy. This includes folks like the White Berbers and the White Arabs.

If you go back before 10,000 YBP, most modern races do not even exist.

Amerindians only go back 6000 YBP. At 9000 YBP, they look like Polynesians and at 12000 YBP they look like Papuans.

SE Asians only go back about 5000 YBP or maybe less. Prior to that, they look like Melanesians.

NE Asians go back about 9000 YBP. Prior, they look like Ainu.

Aborigines go back about 13,000 YBP. Prior to that, no one knows, but maybe they looked like Negritos.

East Indians go back about 8000 YBP. Prior, they look like Aborigines.

African Negroid Blacks only go back about 9,500 YBP. Prior, they look like Pygmies or Bushmen.

As far as whether these folks were our ancestors, they were not. We are not ancestral to the European populations of 10,000 YBP and earlier. There is an interesting article along these lines called We Are Not Our Ancestors that you can Google. What probably happened was that Paleo-Europeans were replaced by Indo-European speakers moving in.

16-23 and 33-39

Repost from the old site.

Those are two figures for the ages at which something peaks in each of the sexes in human beings. Males peak at 16-23 and females peak at 33-39. After the male peak, there is a long slow decline down to some pretty low levels. For females, there is a decline, but not much of one, and the female level remains fairly high even into very old age, and I mean the 80′s.

We are talking sex, sex drive to be precise. Actually, they called it sexual responsiveness, and I am not sure what that means. It’s interesting that we think that elderly women are pretty much asexual beings, when their sex drive, or responsiveness, whatever that is, is only somewhat lower than it was at their peak.

People have whispered about this for some time, and if you have ever dated a ready and willing 35-40 year old woman, I think you know what I mean. They’re like the Eveready Bunny, once you wind them up and get them started, they want to go on all night, 7 AM rush hour be damned.

I am wondering what the evolutionary meaning of all of this is. Men are going to die young, so have the drive peak early, then if the guys dies, so what, maybe the woman can raise the kid on her own?

For the woman, in her prime child-bearing years, you don’t want the drive too high, or she will wander off with every guy who comes along. Later, as her looks decline into her 30′s, the male partner is tempted to wander in search of younger pastures.

Hence the female drive kicks into overdrive to dig the claws and squeeze him tight to home. She needs him around as a provider. Kids are grown and raised pretty much, but she still wants a man? What gives? And why does the female drive stay so high through life even into old age? What’s the advantage? Does an old cave woman have a hard time making it on her own, while an older cave guy can has more of a chance?

Higamous hogamous, women are monogamous. Higamous pigamous, men are polygamous. Neat little saying, but isn’t it more or less true across all cultures, all races and through all times? The woman must be coded to monogamy, for if she runs off with every Cave Man Dreamboat who strolls past the cave, the kids never get raised and they will die.

Males who sowed their oats far and wide impregnated more females than the “one woman man” types. The Lotharios couldn’t raise all those kids, and probably a lot of the kids died, but enough of them survived that his Casanova genes get passed on.

Or maybe many primitive societies like the typical village in New Guinea. One guy, the chief, has lots of wives. A lot of guys are losers in the New Guinea singles game and aren’t getting any at all. The Satyr-in-Chief is coded for promiscuity, and those are the randy genes he is handing down. After a while most of the guys are really horny all the time, even those who are striking out.

A lot of these Chief types are probably pretty sociopathic too, as are the guys who are just running around boffing every cavewoman in sight. Maybe after a while, the clan just gets together and kills the philandering bastard. But he’s already impregnated a number of females.

Hence, sociopathy, which doesn’t seem that adaptive, is passed on genetically and survives even today in the form of gansta rap, corporate executives and reptilian creatures called lawyers.

Much ink has been spilled about how humans are naturally monogamous, mostly by romantic types and women. But I doubt it, and I think this is an exercise in wishful thinking. Women tend towards serial monogamy at the very least. In a tribal situation, keeping the man around may not be so important if food is gathered and eaten communally.

Daddy goes out and hunts and kills animals with the guys, throws the meat in the pot and everyone eats. So he’s not with his baby-momma anymore, so what?

The kid is with Mom and there’s food for both, and that’s all that counts.

As an example of a swinging-style Paleolithics, let us look at the Ache, a tribe in Paraguay that was living in a pre-contact style until 1972 (Hill and Hurtado 1976). By age 30, your average Ache female had been married ten times, usually for about a year or so. A lot of the kids die.

The Ache were often not even really sure who the baby Daddy was. Whichever noble savage the Ache woman had been sleeping with the most in the month prior to her periods stopping was considered to be the Primary Father by the rule of probability.

Other randy tribesman she had slept with in the entire year prior to giving birth, including during pregnancy (!), are called Secondary Fathers. There might be a number of these guys. To the growing kid, all these guys are just known as dear old Dad. The Primary Father is likely to play a greater role in raising the child.

The reason for the two types of fathers is that the Ache, unfortunately, had not completely figured out the laws of impregnation. They were clear that the Primary Father played a necessary and sufficient role, known as “putting it (the baby) in her”. However, the other guys she had sex with, including during pregnancy, were thought to have somehow contributed some of their essence to the fetus. At least they didn’t believe in storks.

The tribe had also codified infanticide. Suppose Mommy had a 3 year old child. Then she has another kid. Well, maybe food is short, so she tells the 3 year old, “Hey look, we only have enough food for you and not enough for your baby brother you are so deathly jealous of. So I’m sure you will happy to know that I am going to take baby brother out tomorrow and kill him.”

Kid grows up knowing Mom killed his brother, but it doesn’t bother him much. It’s just life in the jungle, hey. There are worse threats. Nowadays, mental health professionals are convinced that having your Mom kill your baby brother when you were 3 years old would be a sufficient trauma to cause lasting psychological scars and would require extensive therapy. This is an empirical fact just how now?

Primitive people often have developed an excellent sense of memorizing distant visual objects. Bushmen, with otherwise very low IQ’s (57 IQ)¹, are the world’s best at this. Then comes another very low IQ group (65 IQ)², the Aborigines. Eskimos, with a much higher IQ of 94 – near the world average – have a similar advantage.

Looking at Ache life, we can see why. A major cause of mortality is the very thing Mom warned you about as a boy: not making it home before dark. For the Ache, if you are out in the jungle and you don’t make it back to the village by night, you may just die, as temperatures often plunge very low in the evenings.

Plus, sleeping out in the bush, you stand a good chance of being midnight snack for some jaguar. From which felinophobia may have developed?

The saga of the Ache inform us that the pathologies of the urban Underclass that so horrify middle-class Americans – feral males running around like dogs screwing and impregnating females far and wide and then not bothering to support any of them, women having several kids all by different fathers, and last and most incomprehensibly, mothers who murder their own children – may not be so alien and animalistic after all.

People who do these things are told to, “Quit acting like animals and start acting like humans!”. The terrifying thought being, “acting like humans” may be precisely what the Underclass is doing.

These behaviors may simply be genetically coded leftovers from our tribal past. Those of us who don’t stoop so low are just not giving in to our basest tribal urges. Those who do may be just “acting like normal Homo Sapiens”, discouraging as it seems.

On the streets of Detroit and in the jungles of Paraguay, life can be a short, nasty and brutish affair. In our folly, we look down at the Paleolithics. The cultured metrosexual Western man is merely the rudest tribesman in a mirror, and little less.

Notes

1. Over three separate studies.

2. Over 17 separate studies.

References

Hill, K. and M. Hurtado (1996) Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People . Aldine: Hawthorne, NY.

Get Small Or Die

Repost from the old site. Discusses why people in very hot climates evolve to be short and dark-skinned. It’s that or die, real simple.

Why are Pygmies (a tiny Negroid people living in Central Africa) so small?

Same reason folks living in tropical rainforests all over the world tend to be small. In that environment, it’s get small or die. Real simple. Understand, pilgrim?

A tropical rainforest is an unusual place. It’s not 115 in the shade like the deserts of the Middle East. It’s more like 80-90 all year round. While it’s not extremely hot, it does have very high humidity – close to 100%. That creates a serious problem with cooling off.

At lesser humidity, you sweat like a pig and the lesser humidity allows the sweat to evaporate. As it evaporates, the sweat cools. That’s how you cool off. A similar cooling by evaporation mechanism is used to cool off your refrigerator.

When the humidity gets near 100%, your sweat stops evaporating. You can sweat all day and nite and it doesn’t do much good. Our body temperature of 98.6 runs the risk of rising, even past the survival point of 107-108.

It’s true that Pygmies sweat a lot, but not enough to save their hides.

As the website explains better than I can:

First, the surface area of a small body is greater in relation to its volume.

It is a mathematical fact: if cube A in Fig. 1.4 is 1 centimeter along each side and cube B is 2 centimeters, then A’s surface area is one-quarter that of B, but its volume is eight times smaller.

Heat is produced in the mass of the body, particularly in the liver and muscles, and is lost through the surface; if the latter is larger relative to body mass because a person is small, heat loss is easier and cooling more efficient. In a warm and humid environment, it is best to be small.

Next, Pygmies extend less effort because they are smaller. If you need to use have lots of energy, it’s better to be smaller, because you need to utilize less energy to keep moving if you are smaller. Marathoners tend to be short. It takes less effort to move a smaller body around than it takes to move a big body around, which is why smaller cars get better mileage than bigger ones.

If you are transporting small loads, a pony is a better way to do it. You need a horse for a large load, just like you need an 18 wheeler for big hauls. The fact that a pony is better for the small stuff is why it was used in the Pony Express. They produce more energy per food unit consumed, the same way a Honda gets more energy miles per unit of food gas than a Hummer does.

Pygmies are excellent at dissipating heat and expertly adapted to living in the jungle where there is low carbohydrate and protein reserve. They’re sort of the human Priuses of the jungle.

The Pygmies of Africa. Pygmies are the smallest people on Earth. Compare to the European man of normal size. Pygmies are the same size as we are until puberty, at which time their growth stops.

No one knows how long Pygmies have been evolving. Some say that tropical rainforests have only been around for 5,000 years or less. I disagree. Some gene studies show that Pygmies and other Africans may have split as far back as 70,000 years before present (YBP).

The main problem here is a lack of fossils in the rainforest. Things decay so fast there that we hardly find the bones of anything there. However, there have been skulls found around Central African Republic and north into the Sahel. Here Negroids (modern Blacks) evolved over the past 6-12,000 years. Prior to that, Africans looked like either Khoisan types or Pygmy types.

Pygmies are very athletic and graceful. A Pygmy can shimmy up a tree 100 feet with striking agility.

Pygmies are not necessarily stupid, though some IQ researchers think that their IQ’s are quite low; there has been only one study, done in 1910. Richard Lynn, a racist but generally a good researcher, feels that the Pygmy IQ may be lower even than the African Black average of 67.

Although Pygmy heads are small, their heads are about as big as ours. Nevertheless, the relationship between head size and IQ is weak. Vietnamese have some of the smallest heads on Earth, and their IQ is 99.5.

Pygmies have the widest noses in the world. A small nose is only useful in cold weather. With a small nose, the air inhaled has time to heat up before it reaches the lungs. Air is already warm in the rainforest, so there is no need to heat it up with a nose filter, so a wider nose is better. The wide noses of other Africans may have a similar evolutionary explanation.

Racist idiots like to dog on people for being short. There are short people everywhere there are tropical forests. Examples are the peoples of southern India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Central American and Amazonian Indians. But the Pygmies are the smallest of all.

The Development of Agriculture in Africa

Repost from the old site. Great stuff. Theorizes that the birth of the modern Black race only goes back 6-12,000 years and speculates on how they developed in conjunction with agriculture. Also suggests that Black Africans were probably the first agriculturalists on Earth.

Hang out long enough on White Nationalist fora, and after a while you will be amazed at how many White racists actually believe that Black Africans were Stone Age people who had no metalworking, no agriculture and no civilization of any sort by the time the Europeans contacted them.

It’s true that Africa is not known for its incredible cultural achievements. But it wasn’t exactly a complete backwater either. The White Nationalist line that Africans were a Paleolithic people with only stone implements and no agriculture is surprisingly widespread. Too bad it is horribly wrong.

First of all, agriculture comes to the Sahel as early as 9000 BC. It comes to West Africa around the same time. Later it goes to Southern and Eastern Africa. The “niggers* are too stupid to grow food” line, appalling in its stupidity, continues to retain a lot of currency. Screw that. Africans have been growing food for 1000′s of years.

The latest permutation has to do with Zimbabwe. Ruined by US and UK sanctions that have completely shut the nation out of the international trade and banking system, the economy is imploding and people are starving.

Instead of blaming imperialism, White racists blame “dumb niggers*” for overthrowing White rule and confiscating White farms where 5,000 White farmers had 50% of agricultural land and all of the good land. With the Whites thrown off the land, the narrative goes, the dumb niggers* were too stupid to even figure out how to grow food.

They need Homo Blancas Superiorus to show them how to plant seeds and hoe rows. Without White Johnny Appleseeds to grow the food for them that they are too stupid to grow for themselves, dumb niggers* will all starve to death.

Incredible.

All over Africa, there are hardly any Whites left. Blacks are growing food all over Africa, in every country, in vast numbers. Black Africans are surely smart enough to figure out how to grow food to eat.

In order to look into this story in greater depth, we need to look at the development of Blacks in Africa from an anthropological point of view. The story of Stone Age Africans with no agriculture until Whitey shows up is nonsense.

White Nationalists counter that African Blacks, even over 10,000 years ago, were too stupid to figure out how to grow stuff on their own, so they had to learn from superior Caucasian North Africans. This theory is humorous because in general, White Nationalists refer to North African Caucasians (Berbers and Egyptians) as non-Whites.

Furthermore, at over 10,000 years ago, I’m not sure it matters how Black Africans got agriculture. Cultural diffusion occurs everywhere, and true innovation is pretty hard to pin down. Finally, there is not a lot of evidence that North African Caucasians innovated agriculture at such an early date themselves. As a result, the whole discussion is rendered academic as just another way for racist Whites to kick the Black man while he’s down.

First of all, the original Africans looked like Pygmies or Khoisan (Bushmen). From 6,000-12,000 years ago, Pygmy-Khoisan types traverse from archaic types to the modern Blacks we know today. Modern Blacks are a young race. Pygmies and Khoisan resemble our oldest human ancestors. They have light brown skin and gracile, child-like bodies.

Modern Blacks mostly speak languages related to a huge family called Niger-Congo. During the transition from archaic to modern Blacks, modern Blacks developed agriculture. Blacks had agriculture or proto-agriculture possibly as early as 10,000 years ago when proto-Niger-Congo first started breaking up.

This means that Black Africans were actually some of the first agriculturalists on Earth. Sango Region hunter-gatherers were the first Blacks to develop agriculture. At first they protected wild grain fields, and then made clearings for wild yams and oil palms. At 12,000 years before present (YBP) they were already using hoes that they made, and at 8-9,000 YBP, they were tending pili nut trees with agricultural implements.

There are agricultural terms in reconstructed proto-Niger-Congo from before 10,000 YBP, so they must have had some form of agriculture. Proto-Mande speakers inhabited the Niger’s headwaters at the Mali-Guinea border near the modern city of Bamako, and that was the first group to break off from proto-Niger-Congo.

The Fouta Djallon Highlands in southeastern Guinea, source of the Niger River. This is probably where Black African agriculture, cultivated by proto-Mande speakers, began over 10,000 years ago.

Modern Black Africans are associated with the spread of agriculture in Africa at this time, and this agricultural spread is also located at the headwaters of the Niger, because this is the cradle of the Sudanic Food Complex.

Also, agriculture independently evolved in West Africa (African yams, kola nut) and Ethiopia (coffee, tef) during the period of 4,000-9,000 YBP.

Animal husbandry was widely adopted, and by 7,200 YBP, the Sahel had a full array of food production (cultivated crops, animal husbandry) before this full array was developed in Egypt. So the movement of agriculture in its full array from North African Caucasians to Sahelian Blacks is shown to the a lie.

It’s true that Africa south of the Equator lagged behind, and White Nationalists love to go about this, but the truth is that there were no animals to domesticate down there, nor were there any plants to domesticate either.

It’s doubtful that the Sahelian Blacks were any smarter than the ones south of Equator. They were just better positioned to receive animals for husbandry from Southwest Asia, and they had plants that could be domesticated.

Development of agriculture in modern Blacks also seems to have led to high testosterone levels along with more robust body types. See the prior post for more on that.

The first real classical Black Negroid skeleton dates to only 6,500 YBP. Before that, at 12,000 YBP, they look more like the San or Pygmies. Within 6,000 years as Africans moved to agriculture, Blacks changed from gracile archaic types to robust Negroid types. At 6,000-7,000 YBP, the agricultural transition was full.

In contrast to Afrocentric hokum about Black Athena and Black Egypt, modern Blacks do not appear in Egyptian paintings before 4,000 YBP. Before that, the Blacks in northeast Africa, Nubia and Ethiopia were more gracile San (Bushmen) types.

Modern Blacks reach the middle Nile by around 4,000 YBP. At 3,000 YBP, the Bantus spread from Cameroon all through East, Central and Southern Africa, of course bringing agriculture, and yes, iron-making, with them.

Nubians do not obtain their modern Black appearance until 2,700 years ago. Before that, the Nubians and presumably the Hamites look like today’s Egyptians.

Black populations in Africa do not bode well for Philippe Rushton’s R-K Theory. The oldest African populations of all, the Pygmies and the San, with presumably some of the lowest IQ’s (the San have IQ’s of about 54), are very highly K-selected.

They have low fecundity (are not very fertile) and very long intervals between births. This is normally what is expected of a super-K-selected group such as NE Asians, and is said to be associated with high IQ. Yet in the San, it is associated with the lowest IQ’s on Earth. Rushton’s theory does not smell right.

*Used sardonically

References

Rushton, J. P. 1995. Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, 2nd Special Abridged Edition. Port Huron, MI: Charles Darwin Research Institute.

Great New Study of Ancient African Genes

Repost from the old site.

A new study of African genes shines some new light on the Out of Africa Hypothesis, which is now the dominant view. Most of the Multiregionalists are now isolated into racial or ethnic chauvinists, each of whom wants to believe that they came from a different kind of monkey. This includes European, Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese chauvinists. It’s all nonsense, and Out of Africa reigns.

Previously, the oldest human lineages were in the Khoisan or Bushmen, where they go back from 90,000-150,000 years. During this period, six separate extant lineages existed in parallel in the proto-Khoisan.

However, recent data has shown that the oldest human genes of all are in East Africans from Kenya and Tanzania.

When humans left Africa 60-70,000 years before present (YBP) from East Africa via the Gulf of Aden to Yemen, and from there along the Indian Ocean to India, SE Asia and Australia and New Guinea, there were at least 40 separate lineages going in Africa, each of which has continued to this day.

Finally, 40,000 YBP, newer, more modern lineages entered the Khoisan pool. The evolution of humans in Africa involves many lineages that were isolated from one another and were evolving separately.

A very early split in modern humans of two separate lines is suggested. This occurred from 140-210,000 years ago in Africa, and may have occurred near Lake Victoria, but we do not really know for sure. One line went to South Africa and the other line went to East Africa – Ethiopia, etc.

About 144,000 years ago, a South African line entered the gene pool in Ethiopia. This line then creates a joint East-South African line that later traverses westward from Ethiopia to the Sahara, West and North Africa. Although there has long been debate about whether the cradle of human development in Africa was in South or East Africa, as they were both contenders, the debate now appears to be settled. Humans arose about 180,000 years ago from a Southwest African site around Namibia.

Genes in Africa have been found in the Khoisan dating back 132,000 years, and they have not been found in any other groups of humans anywhere else. That proves Out of Africa right there.

However, we should note that the ancient South African humans did not look like either modern day Khoisan or Bantus.

Of the 40 separate lineages going in Africa 40,000 YBP, only two went on to become all modern non-Africans. Pygmies go back to a split with other Africans 70,000 YBP. The earliest male line among humans appears in the Khoisan in large numbers, but hardly exists outside of Africa anymore, as it has probably been drowned out by newer lines. Two great graphics are here.

The modern-day ancestors of the Africans who left Africa to populate the world are found in the Sudanese, Ethiopians and also the Bushmen. Note that the Bushmen once extended all over East Africa, and a few isolated groups like the Sandawe are still extant in Kenya.

In my opinion, it was Blacks in this part of Africa, the ancestors of the Tutsi and Masai, who left Africa 45,000 years ago, probably via the Horn once again, moved into Iran and the Caucasus, and went on to birth the Caucasian race after they received proto-Asian inputs from China.