Category Archives: Anthropology

IQ and Racial Background of Latin American Indians

Granted, they are primitive Austronesian Asian people with an IQ of 70 and it takes all sorts of social programs to keep them fed and clothed and away from the alcohol but you Gallegos Basque do not even pretend to give a single rat’s ass.

First of all, Amerindians are not Austronesians. Austronesians are Malays, Filipinos, Indonesians and Taiwanese Aborigines. Other people  speaking Austronesian languages such as Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians are only part Austronesian.

Polynesians are 1/2 Melanesian and 1/2 Austronesian.

Melanesians vary, but the some of the Austronesian speakers in the Papuan coast and eastern Indonesia are 20% Austronesian and 80% Papuan. Austronesians only settled the coast of Papua, so the interior remained Papuan. The Austronesians brought language but few genes.

I believe Micronesians are 1/2 Polynesian and 1/2 Papuan.

Amerindians are simply Northeast Asians, the same folks as Chinese, Japanese, Mongolians and Siberians, but they are closest to Siberians. The main difference is that the Amerindians are from a more primitive and archaic type of Northeast Asian that may not have gone though the high IQ mutations. I would call them Paleomongoloids, whereas the others are generally Neomongoloids. So Amerindians are just an early version of the highly functional Northeast Asians.

Some relation to the Northeast Asians can be seen in their features and sparse, Northeast Asian like body hair. The hair on their heads looks very Northeast Asian too. Whereas a Northeast Asian baby is calm, cool and collected, an Amerindian baby is silent but very aware and watchful, like an Indian hunter hiding in the woods waiting for a deer. They are so deathly quiet that observers often wonder if they are dead. On the other hand, Black babies are precocious physically, very fast in development and tend to be very active physically and even boisterous. They are quite extroverted.

These racial differences in babies are present from the very earliest stages of life and I am convinced that they are biological in nature. I also believe that this shows that there are obvious differences between the races at least in personality. If those differences are showing up that  early and that uniformly, they cannot possibly be due to culture. Babies are not effected tremendously by culture anyway.

Amerindian IQ is absolutely not 70. They are not that dumb. Scores vary, but a figure of 87 for the whole continent seems pretty good. Some are lower. I believe that Indians in Mexico are 83 and in Guatemala is the same.

87 IQ is not a bad score. Your average human has an IQ of 89. Certainly 87 IQ folks or even 83 IQ folks do not need all sorts of social programs to keep them clothed and fed. Keeping them away from the booze is much easier. These people lived life without social programs for 12,000 years. They did just fine. They don’t need welfare to survive.

Although the 87 IQ is close to the 85 US Black IQ, Amerindians have only 2X the White crime rate, whereas for Blacks it is 7-8X the White crime rate. This shows that attempt to put White-Black crime differences all down to IQ is a fool’s errand, but that is what so many HBD types, usually racists, do. There is more driving Black aggression, crime, violence and antisocial behavior than just IQ.

I am thinking that extroversion and associated problems with impulse control and delayed gratification along with higher testosterone in both males and females may have something to do with it. Also some genetic mutations that elevate the risk of violence and criminality in Whites are present at much higher levels in Blacks. It is seen in only .1% of White men, but I believe the rate is  ~5% in Black men.

We need to stop IQ fetishization and trying to reduce all racial issues to IQ. There’s a hell of a lot more going on with humans than just IQ, and it doesn’t take a genius IQ to figure that out.


Filed under Americas, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Central America, Crime, Filipinos, Guatemala, Indonesia, Indonesians, Intelligence, Latin America, Malays, Melanesians, Mexico, Micronesians, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Physical, Polynesians, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Whites

Where Is Telegu Spoken?

Jason Voorhees: Mr. Lindsey

Telugu meaning Tamil of Southeast India. I was there once, many moons ago.

Telegu and Tamil are two different groups and languages. Tamils are indeed in SE India, but Telegu is spoken to the northwest quite a bit in a region of Andhra Pradesh called Telegana. Telegana is the far southern portion of Andhra Pradesh. It is heavily forested. There was a movement among them to break away and form their own state a while back I think. There was also quite a bit of armed Maoist activity there, but I think most of it was wiped out.

With 85 million speakers, Telegu is one of the largest world languages, but no doubt most folks have not heard of it. It has more speakers than Italian! I am not sure how far apart the Dravidian languages are from each other, but they can’t understand each other, that’s for sure.

I met two Telegus in a nearby town and I have seen photos of others, including one of the leaders of the Telegana Movement, also a Maoist, after he was released from prison. These three Telegus had quite prominent Australoid features, at least as Australoid as Tamils.


Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Dravidian, India, Language Families, Left, Linguistics, Maoism, Marxism, Physical, Regional, South Asia, Tamil

A Bit about the Sasquatches

Paul C.: Also, what other secret information do you have?

I know this sounds absolutely insane, but I was selling the directions on how to get to one of the hottest Sasquatch Habituation Sites in North America. That would be the Alberta Habituation Site. It was a closely guarded secret and the information was almost impossible to come by, but a lot of people wanted to go out there and see if they could find the Sasquatches.

If you wanted directions to that site, I sold the directions for $100. And I had a number of buyers too.

It’s amazing all the ways you can make money if you just put your mind to it.

There are those of us who are absolutely certain that these things are real, and there are lots of us out there working on this. If we ever prove these things are real, it’s the story of the century. The are definitely shot and killed from time to time, and I know of a few cases. In fact, a good friend of mine shot and killed two of the damn things! And I believe him too. There’s no way he is lying about this. I know people who knew him before he shot these things and they said he never believed in them and laughed at and ridiculed people who believed in them. Do you have any idea how many stories like this I have of people who thought Bigfoot was the stupidest thing in the whole world right up until the day when the 9 foot tall thing ran across the highway in Oregon? Or whatever your story is. I cannot even count how many stories like this I have heard.

I believe they are real because my good friends told me that they saw these things. They told me with a straight face and there’s no way they are lying. They told they saw them as clear as air just like you were standing in this room next to me right now. The people I know who have seen them were nurses, university biology and anatomy professors, college professors, schoolteachers, authors, you name it.

They can ridicule us all they want to. We know these damn things are real. I just hope I do not die before we unveil these damned things.

I have heard of three shootings in recent years. A body was almost surely recovered in one of them as I know an impeccable source who saw a photo of it. In the other case, I am not sure if they got a body or not. The problem is that when you kill one of these things, you go over to look at it and it looks like an 8 foot tall Paul C. covered with hair. Everyone completely flips and thinks they have killed a person. Every single person who kills one is afraid of going down on homicide. Hence the bodies are left there or buried. Some seem to be retained but those have a very nasty habit of disappearing. The last I heard about the most recent is that the government was in possession of it for a while.

Even if you can keep the government from stealing it, these bodies have a way of disappearing. God knows where they go. They’re red hot dangerous to hold onto, so I suspect people dispose of them. Dump them in the ocean, set them on fire, who knows?

One more problem: if it ever gets out that you have a body, the government usually comes out and steals it. They come in black vans or helicopters and they are dressed in all black and they carry automatic weapons that they point at you. Seriously. The “men in black” come out and steal them. We have since learned that US military intelligence dresses in all black. We think these people are maybe with DARPA.

You are thinking cover-up. Yes there has been a longstanding government cover-up of these things since the Patterson film at least. The Smithsonian is very deep into this and has been covering this up for over a century. It all goes back to Powell Doctrine.

You are asking me where the bones are. We have them. They are in university collections, but they are all labeled “Indian.” Sasquatch bones look like human bones except they are much larger. Any strange ancient bones found in the US are automatically labeled “Indian.”

If you are wondering what they are, they are not apes. They are actually human beings. Sasquatches are people. Thing is they are not human beings like you and I. We are Homo sapiens sapiens. They are something else, perhaps something like Neandertalis or Heidelbergensis. You know those subhumans like Neandertal, Denisova, Flores Man, Sulu Man, Red Deer Cave Man? Well, guess what? They never went extinct! A few of them survived and that is exactly what these Sasquatches are. They are simply prehistoric men. It’s not as insane as it sounds if you think about it.

Just imagine if Neandertal or some of those other subhumans never went extinct. Well, this is the remains of them, the Sasquatches. Yetis and the other similar things are all the same creature, and Yetis exist too, just like Sasquatches. And those Orang Pendeks in Indonesia absolutely exist. I know people who search for them almost full-time and they swore up and down that these things are real. And a quite famous US journalist and environmentalist saw one in 1995. I think they may be related to Flores Man. Orang Pendeks are like the Flores Men that did not die out.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Animals, Anthropology, Apes, Asia, Bigfoot, Canada, Government, Indonesia, Mammals, North America, Physical, Regional, SE Asia, USA, Wild

How a College Degree – in Anything – Helps You in Later Life and Work

Many entry level jobs with advancement possibilities used to require a college degree – in anything at all.  They could care less what it was in. The idea was that if you were able to get through college at all, you were probably reasonably bright. College grads in the US have average IQ’s of 115, so they are more intelligent than 82% of the population. College  isn’t supposed to be for everyone. It’s not supposed to be so easy that someone of average intelligence can fly right through.

In addition to being reasonably intelligent, if you graduated from college it showed that you had a good work ethic and a level of perserverance and persistence under serious pressure. You have no idea how many people drop out of college. Last time I was at university, I noticed a lot of students who didn’t seem to be college material. I noticed that almost all of them were freshmen and sometimes sophomores. Some of the girls were really hot, but they didn’t seem real smart. I was wondering what the Hell they were even doing in college. Without fail, I noticed that almost 100% of these people were gone after their freshman or sophomore year. They just couldn’t handle it.

Also a lot of bright students get involved in working, often full-time. Everyone says work your way through school, but I say that;s a bad idea. I knew lots of students who worked their way through school. The more hours they worked, the more likely they were to drop out. Studies have now shown that there is nearly a linear relationship here.

When you are college age and your parents are not wealthy, you often have to live with  your parents. You can only work part-time, and it doesn’t leave you with much money. Many of your friends who did not go to college are now working full-time and they are bringing in all sorts of money. Many are moving out. They are partying all the time on weekends. They start dating, and that costs money. It’s pretty hard to date with no money. It’s hard to hang out with your working friends when you are in college as they seem to have no respect for what you are doing. At best, they see it as an oddity.

You really don’t get any bonus points among the working crowd by being in school. A lot of these people are insecure and get defensive about not going to college. You get insulted a lot and called a loser for going to school. Because, you know,  they didn’t go, they feel insecure, so they need to insult you to feel that they are somehow better.

I really advise anyone in college to just associate with other people in college. They’re all in the same boat you are. People who are not in school and are in the workforce full-time are doing something very different with their lives and I don’t think college students can get along with these people. It simply doesn’t work. A good rule in life is to hang around with  people who are doing whatever you are doing. If you hang out with people who are doing something much different from what you are doing, it just doesn’t seem to work. Would be nice if it did, but it just doesn’t.

I have been told I know a lot of stuff, but frankly, most of it is from being an autodidact. A college education ideally teaches you how to think – it teaches you critical thinking skills. Then you take that ramped-up college-educated brain out into the world and use it to gain new knowledge or even to work at jobs where you have no training or background but the only requirement is that you have to be smart.

Once you learn how to think, you can now work at all sorts of jobs that require nothing more than being smart. I am not obviously using my degrees now for work, but my degrees taught me how to think. For one of my side jobs, counseling, the only requirement is that you have to be smart. I have no degrees, credentials, licences or any of that, as you do not need them. But college taught me how to think and this job requires serious brains, so I am able to do it. In addition, I learned a lot of this job simply through study for many years.

I had a job a while back as a linguist and anthropologist. I had a degree in Linguistics, but we were never taught field linguistics. So I simply went out and checked out a small pile of books on how to do field linguistics.  Then I got on the phone and called all over the country to some of the bigger linguists out there, and I asked them how to do the job. Mostly I wanted to know how to make an alphabet. They gave me a lot of tips. With those skills, I was able to invent an alphabet for the tribe. I also made a dictionary and a phrase book. For the phrase book, I ended up being creative director.

Although I can’t do art, I designed the book. I wrote out of all of the text and then I set aside spaces where I wanted the drawings to go. I specified what drawings of what I wanted in each space and how big they should be. For instance, “a drawing of an old Indian woman weaving a basket here.” I have no idea how I did this, as I never really got trained. We were supposed to learn layout in Journalism school, but I never got taught it because it wasn’t in the courses. You had to go to the print shop and learn it on your own. My art skills are atrocious. But I think those fancy degrees I got ramped up my brain nicely enough to where I can now design books, though I never took a single hour of a course in how to do it.

Later I had to do a lot of anthropological work, so I simply went and checked out a small pile of books on how to be a field anthropologist. I also called up a few anthropologists and talked to them. Then I read all of the previous anthropological work that had been done on the tribe, hundreds of pages. After a while I got a feel for how to be a Cultural Anthropologist. I simply taught myself how to do the job.

I recently worked as Graphics Editor on a book series. We were in charge of making maps of languages and where they were spoken. We had maps of regions and we had to shade in and label each of ~50  languages and where they were spoken. The speaker populations were colored onto maps of Eurasia. We had ~5 maps to work with. After a while, I figured out that all of the maps were wrong and they were all wrong in different ways!

And it wasn’t exactly obvious how or why they were wrong, and it was not clear where the speaker population should properly be shaded on the map. After quite some time, I finally got a feel for it, but it was a pretty wild project. All the source material was wrong and all of it in different ways! Eventually we figured out how each map was wrong and in what way it was wrong. Many of the maps were also correct for some populations too, and after a while, I figured that out too. But it was a pretty crazy project. I know nothing of graphics. I took one university geography course, but it did not help me. I can’t draw to save my life. But I worked with an artist and gave him instructions of where to shade in the groups. I didn’t need to know how to draw and I didn’t need to know anything about maps. I just needed to know how to think.

Even for this sleuthing we are doing here, I believe my university education is helping me to do this. I never took one minute of a single criminology class. But I didn’t need to. What I and hopefully the rest of you are doing here in this sleuthing is that you are simply using pure, raw critical thinking skills. Sure you need special training to be a detective, but if you have ever met any detectives, one thing you will notice is that they are whip smart.

This sleuthing we are doing here is a great example of how learning critical thinking skills alone gives you a skill that is now transferable to all sorts of work in which you might not have received any training at all. None of us need to be Criminology majors to sleuth out this crime. All any of us needs is good critical thinking skills. That’s what is truly necessary for this sort of work.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.


Filed under Anthropology, Education, Higher Education, Intelligence, Labor, Linguistics, Psychology, Sociology

Race and Body Hair

Barbara Domino: Are hair strands used for identification of ancestry…Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid classification?

Can be. The hairs of the races are different. For that matter, Negrito and Melanesian (woolly) hair is different from Black hair (kinky or coiled). Aborigine (wavy) and Papuan hair is different from Caucasian hair. And Negroid hair is different from Khoisan hair (very tightly coiled and spotty).

Mongoloid hair – straight, black, smooth and sparse, seems different from Caucasian hair.

Not that anyone has any hair on their bodies anymore anyway, but back in the days before body hair went extinct, Asian body hair was definitely different from that of Caucasians and Black body hair differed from Caucasians and Asians.

I know nothing of the body hair of Negritos or Aborigines. When the shaving fad finally hits the devastated Outback or the ruined Aeta villages on the jungle mountains, you will know that the whole world is now postmodern and globalized with nothing left to discover.

Sigh. Alas.

Speaking of which, anybody know where I can get me one of those Aborigine chicks? How bout those cute little Negrito ladies?

Bucket list, guys.


Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Europeans, Khoisan, Melanesians, Negritos, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

Primitive People Are Smarter Than You Think

We have a very primitive but wise group of Asians living amongst us around here called Hmong. This is a Chinese minority group that has moved down into Laos in the last 300 years. They did not even have a written language until the 1950’s and they have always lived quite a primitive life in the jungles.

Nevertheless, they are quite wise. I read an ethnography on them one time. It said that the Hmong believe that women who get pregnant before 19-20 are more likely to have problems in childbirth. The people who figured this out had no knowledge of modern medicine. But we now know that females continue to develop until age ~18-19. Pregnancies before this age are more problematic because the female’s hips are not wide enough to carry a baby yet. The final widening of the hips sufficient to carry a baby does not occur until age ~19.

You will notice this if you see 16-18 year old girls with killer curves and skinny bodies. They look incredibly hot but their bodies are not natural. It’s not normal to be skinny and curvy. You want curves, you got a bigger woman. You want thin, you get a stick. These girls look this way because the body in a formal sense is fully developed by age 16 in the sense of sex drive, full breast and pubic hair development, menarche and the full curvy body shape with narrow stomach, wider hips and a projecting butt is present by age 16.

Except for one thing. The hips have not yet widened to full adult proportions. So the 16-18 year old girl look is not natural or normal. It is a phase of incomplete development and makes little sense biologically. Since it is not biologically correct, there are increased pregnancy issues at this age range.

When I learned that the Hmong have a traditional belief that females should not get pregnant until 19-20, I was stunned. These humans had learned this via trial and error over the centuries. They didn’t need modern medicine to tell them the facts. They figured them out on their own.

Similarly, the Hmong have a traditional belief that one cannot learn a new language after age 40. This has been a problem in my area because non-English speaking Hmong in this age group simply refuse to enroll in English classes and so never learn to speak English much at all. The men often pick up a bit of English anyway because they are often working, but the women tend to stay at home, so older Hmong women are often Hmong monolinguals.

I told my mother of this Hmong belief and she said, “Aha! See? They figured that out on their own. And they are probably right. By age 40, it will be awfully hard to pick up a new language.” And studies in formal linguistics are showing this to be true.


Filed under Anthropology, Applied, Asians, Biology, Cultural, Girls, Health, Hmong, Hmong, Hmong-Mien, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Medicine, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians

“Your Grandmother Was Right”: The Importance of Traditional Wisdom

It’s quite amazing how many scientific facts about human beings that primitive people have learned through the centuries by trial and error and observation. Most traditional wisdom about the human condition has a large aspect of truth to it. Humans are not stupid. Human groups do not learn lies as traditional wisdom over the centuries. Instead they tend to learn truths.

I call this, “Your grandmother was right!” It is important even in our modern era to pay attention to the traditional wisdom of ages that groups of humans have. My experience has shown that traditional wisdom, while not necessarily PC, often has a huge Slab of Truth packed into its Knowledge Sandwich. The fact that traditional wisdom is so often not PC is why the Cultural Left hates traditional wisdom so much.


Filed under Anthropology, Cultural Marxists, Left, Psychology

More on the Remains of Ancient Australoid “Indo-Pacific” Languages in India

Jm8: Might there have also been more than one language family among the proto-Australoid peoples of India I wonder (including Austroasiatic) (like there are in Australia and Papua today), since India is big and had been inhabited for a very long time (being among the longest inhabited areas outside Africa)?

It would be interesting to investigate the distribution of Austroasiatic influence over the various Dravidian languages to see where in India it is stronger.

This article suggests that Austroasiatic is not indigenous to India (but rather to south east Asia).

I had though that the Veddoid/early Australoid languages of India might be lost forever and only (maybe) partly reconstructible (in as few aspects) from their influences on other languages that replaced them. But if they were Austroasiatic (and represented by those languages surviving in Andra Pradesh), then that is not the case.

“The Vedda/Australoid people are speakers of the Munda branch of Austroasiatic. There is an Austroasiatic layer in both Dravidian and Indic. It is the oldest layer.”

That’s interesting. I thought Austroasiatic was associated with Southern Proto (Paleo?)-Mongoloids (like some of the Northeast Indian tribes — and Vietnamese is Austroasiatic). But maybe it predates the split between Australoid and Proto-Mongoloid peoples (some Paleomongoloid descendants of course still somewhat resemble Australoids, or did not that long ago in prehistory), which would be interesting. It’s it a very old and deep language family? I know there are some tribes in East Central India (Andra Pradesh I think) that speak Austroasiatic, and they look phenotypically a bit like something transitional between South Mongoloid and Australoid.

“I am not aware of theories showing Dravidian close to Australian languages.”

It might be discredited now (I’ll try to look into it, and the Austroasiatic influence on Dravidian, which is interesting). The theory (I think) was only that there might be a substratal influence of something like one of the Australian families on Dravidian (but still that Dravidian came mostly from somewhere the Middle East — or consistent with that idea anyway).

It might make sense that there is a substratal influence from “Indo-Pacific” languages such as those from the Andaman Islands and West Papua in Dravidian, but I have never heard of it. That would be an older layer underneath even the Munda layer in Dravidian.

There was no split between Australoids and Proto-Mongoloids. The former simply transitioned into the latter. Austroasiatic is associated with the Paleomongoloids and Neomongoloids of SE Asia. Austroasiatic is indeed old and deep, and the evidence for Austroasiatic is about as good as the evidence for Afroasiatic and Altaic. This doesn’t make sense because Afroasiatic and Austroasiatic are generally recognized families, but Altaic is not, although there evidence for the two former is no better than the evidence for the latter.

They were not lost forever as Kusunda, Nihali and the Vedda language substrate seem to be the remains of the tongues of the original Australoid speakers. The original tongues were not Austroasiatic – those languages came later. However, at the moment, most of the highly Australoid people in India speak a Munda language like Santhal. Apparently the Munda languages were once widespread over the whole continent, but most of them were replaced by Dravidian and Indic intrusions. In the more settled people, Dravidian and Indic replaced Munda languages, but in the tribals, the earlier Munda tongues lingered perhaps due to their inaccessibility living in the forest and the fact that the scheduled tribes are mostly outside the caste system.

Yes and the split between the Munda languages and the rest of the Austroasiatic is very deep. Austroasiatic can almost be split into Munda and non-Munda as two basic parts of the family. And there is not a lot left connecting the Munda languages to the rest of the family.

Kusunda, Nihali and the substrate of the Vedda language of Sri Lanka are thought to be the remains of the languages of the original Australoid speakers. These languages may be related to the Andaman Islands languages and Papuan languages. I know there is a connection between Kusunda and Andaman Islands languages and West Papuan tongues. There is some theorized relationship with such “Indo=Pacific” tongues and Nihali and the Vedda substrate also.

Yes, the Mundas came into India relatively lately and surely replaced nearly all of those original Andaman/Papuan languages of the Australoid people.

At the moment, Kusunda and Nihali are isolates, and even the Andaman tongues are split into two different families, so right now there are already separate language families among these Australoid people.

1 Comment

Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Anthropology, Asia, Austro-Asiatic, Cultural, Dravidian, India, Indic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Indo-Irano-Armenian, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Isolates, Language Families, Linguistics, Pacific, Physical, Regional, South Asia, Sri Lanka

The Influence of the Tongues of Australoid/Vedda People in India on Dravidian Languages

Jm8: I wonder what influence the languages of the proto-Australoid/Veddoid peoples had on modern Dravidian languages. It seems pretty clear that Dravidian came primarily from a Near Eastern family also ancestral to Elamite (Elamo-Dravidian) in Iran and reached India around the Neolithic. But I wonder if Veddoid peoples’ languages could have a substratal influence on Dravidian (or at least some Dravidian languages—esp those farther south or the tribal ones), even perhaps playing a role in its divergence from its Elamo-Dravidian root; depending on where Dravidian truly diverged (e.g: If it diverged within the Indian subcontinent—like around Pakistan/NW India—, where proto-Australoid peoples lived).

The influence of those peoples might be hard to assess. I recall a while ago reading about an old theory that Dravidian had some grammatical similarities to certain Australian Aboriginal languages (Northern maybe?).

But did these similarities also exist I wonder in the one surviving Dravidian language of the North, Brahui in Pakistan, whose speakers presumably have much less native proto-Australoid ancestry?

One might possibly also check for similarities to Andamanese languages (a bit of a long shot I know).

The Vedda/Australoid people are speakers of the Munda branch of Austroasiatic. There is an Austroasiatic layer in both Dravidian and Indic. It is the oldest layer.

I am not aware of theories showing Dravidian close to Australian languages.

There is a moribund language spoken in Nepal called Kusunda which appears to be related to West Papuan the Andaman Islands languages.

Keep in mind that in mainstream Historical Linguistics (which has deviated far away from anything sane anymore anyway), there is no Papuan language family. Instead, Papua is divided into 37 separate language families and 20 isolates. They also say there is no Australian language family,  although I believe R. W. Dixon made a case for one. Instead we have 20 different language families and four isolates in Australia. And they do not posit that the Andaman languages form a coherent family. There are two separate families even in the Andaman Islands, with Ongan and Greater Andamanese, with no demonstrated relationship between them. I have looked at the Andaman languages, and trust me, some of them are extremely far apart.

The people positing that Papuan, Australian and Andaman are language families or even that all three together form a single family called Indo-Pacific (Joseph Greenberg’s hypothesis) are all long-rangers whose views are not accepted in mainstream linguistics. However, Steven Wurm accepts a much-modified and more conservative view of Greenberg’s theory.  In addition, it appears that Trans New Guinea, West Papuan, Greater Andamanese and some Timorese languages, all included in Greenberg’s Indo-Pacific, show striking similarities which to my mind could only be genetic.

At any rate mainstream Linguistics is very conservative as far as Historical Linguistics goes. The existence of Elamo-Dravidian, which should be obvious to anyone looking, is not even regarded as proven.

I have looked at Dravidian quite a bit, and I did not think it was even close to the putative Nostratic family of Northern Eurasia. Instead it seemed to be closer to Afroasiatic than anything else. If Elamite was spoken in Western Iran, and before that the proto-Dravidians were in the Levant (according to the old theories), then it would make sense that Dravidian would be closer to Afroasiatic than anything else.

Keep in mind that Afroasiatic is a very old family – it may be 13-15,000 years old. And the fact that it is even regarded as proven at all (yes there are some ultra-splitters who are now saying that Afroasiatic is not even real) shows how wrong Historical Linguistics is when they say that any relationships older than 8,000 years cannot be proven because they are beyond the means of the comparative method of Historical Linguistics. If anything over 8,000 YBP is unknowable as far as the comparative method is concerned, then how did we prove Afroasiatic which goes back 15,000 YBP?

But Comparative Linguistics has gotten totally offtrack. Whereas traditionally, we simply observed languages and threw them into families based on obvious similarities and only after that reconstructed, now they have it backwards. No matter how much the languages look alike, we can’t put them into a family unless we have reconstructed all the way back to the proto-languages and found regular sound correspondences. Only then do we prove relatedness.

But Linguistics never worked that way before. Relatedness was posited simply on observation, and only later was the hard reconstruction work with regular sound correspondences done.

According to Lyle Campbell, Joanna Nichols and others unfortunately at the top of Historical Linguistics nowadays, Sir William Jones could not have even posited the existence of an Indo-European family because we had not yet reconstructed Proto-Indo-European and its regular sound correspondences yet. See? They’ve got it backwards.

Anyway even IE is not well understood. How’s that Laryngeal Theory working out for you guys? Coming right along, right? Didn’t think so. Just as I thought.


Filed under Aborigines, Afroasiatic, Anthropology, Asia, Australia, Comparitive, Dravidian, India, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Iran, Isolates, Language Classification, Language Families, Linguistics, Nepal, Pacific, Pakistan, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia

The Confusing Genetics of East Indians

A-Man: Robert why did you say that south Indians are Caucasoid in genes? Aren’t they like a midway group between proto-Arabids (Caucasoid) and Australoid?

On some charts (autosomal DNA) the only Australoids are Papuans and Aborigines, and Indians look Caucasoid on those charts. That would be Cavalli-Sforza’s chart. However, they are some of the strangest Caucasoids of all as they are distantly related to the rest and closer to Asians than any other Caucasoids. Other charts have them an independent race between Asians and Caucasoids.

And yes, Indians are linked to Europeans, especially Southern Europeans, via Arabs. The link goes like this:

Greeks -> Arabs -> Indians

And honestly there is not a lot of genetic distance between any of those groups. The Asian and African sub-races are much further apart than Caucasoids. There is probably more distance between Samoyeds and Chukchi than between any of the three above.

Incidentally, the Chukchi somehow barely end up in the Caucasoid plot on Cavalli-Sforza’s autosomal chart! This indicates how closely related some of those ancient Siberians are to ancient Caucasoids. There is a group called Ancient Northeast Asians from 15-20,000 YBP that seems to be ancestral to both NE Asians and Caucasoids. There are also links between Orcadians (Scottish Islanders) and Siberians. Skulls from Europe from 21,000 YBP look more Amerindian than anything else. The closest match-up between those ancient European skulls is the Makah Amerindian tribe from the US. But the Amerindians are sometimes thought of as a NE Asian-Caucasoid link anyway.

Another interesting thing on Cavalli-Sforza’s chart is that the Berbers, a Caucasoid group, land barely in the African plot! This shows deep links between North African Caucasians and Black Subsaharan Africans.

There is a small Berberid group from Algeria called Mozabites. These are Caucasoids, but they are some of the weirdest-looking Caucasoids I have ever seen. They don’t really look like any other race of humans, but if you had to throw them anywhere, you would have to put them in Caucasians. Some of them look remarkably like people from India. In papers about the genesis of the Caucasian race, North Africa, the Middle East and India are mentioned as three hubs of the development of this race with many migrations back and forth over 30-40,000 YBP. And that Mozabite group gets mentioned over and over when they talk about the remains of ancient genetic groups along with the Uighur for some odd reason.


Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Amerindians, Anthropology, Arabs, Asians, Berbers, Blacks, Chuckchi, East Indians, Europe, Europeans, Genetics, India, North Africa, North Africans, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Siberians, South Asia, South Asians, Uighurs