Category Archives: Semang

The Proto-Mongoloids and the Birth of the Asian Race

This post from 15 months ago is getting posted around to forums where people are discussing it, mostly positive. If you are interested in the races of Asia and especially the historical development of the various races, you should find this interesting.

A commenter says:

Robert, if people like Abe Hiroshi can have that appearance without having any Caucasian DNA at all, then you shouldn’t call their appearance “Caucasian looking”, it sounds extremely Eurocentric and misleading from a genetic standpoint.

Also, genetics has shows that Paleo-Mongoloids and Australoids are not the same thing. Otherwise, the Ainu would be much genetically closer to Australian Aborigines than to Modern East Asians (which they aren’t). Instead, they are actually closest to Native Americans, Native Taiwanese and other groups that have maintained their Proto-Mongoloid features.

The Mongoloid race as a whole is much older than you say it is, Robert. It was 41,000 years ago when their split from Caucasians happened and about 11,000 years ago when the Neo-Mongoloid (aka classic East Asian) phenotype first appeared. The Japanese in particular are about 85% Neo-Mongoloid (Yayoi) & 15% Proto-Mongoloid (Jomon).

Also, DNA studies have shown that the Hmong people don’t have any Caucasian ancestry at all. Traits like light hair & eye colors actually originated in Central Asia (where the Mongoloid race began) and only later spread to Europe due to natural selection. This is why Genghis Khan, who was proven to be 100% Mongoloid, had red hair & green eyes, why many Koreans & Japanese are born with brown hair, and why many contemporary Mongolians (who range 83%- 100% Mongoloid) Kazakhs (61%-85% Mongoloid) and related groups have a wide range of hair and eye colors.

Finally, little Australoid (and no Caucasian) ancestry exist in Malays & Indonesians. Both groups are about 80%-90% Mongoloid.

The skulls at the huge dig in north China from 9,000 YBP appear Australoid (Ainuid). The general consensus is that the Mongoloid race only goes back 9,000 years. Before that, all Asians look Australoid on skulls. In the north, they looked Ainuid or maybe Polynesian. In the south, they looked Negrito or better yet, Melanesian. Ainuids are Australoid on skulls, not genes. That is the way I split people. Genes are misleading. Filipino Negritos look like Filipinos on genes. Thai Negritos look Thai on genes. This is misleading.

Splitting on skulls give us much better races. We get Tamils of India, the Senoi and Mansi and Semang Negritos of Thailand and Malaysia, the Philippine Negritos, the Ainu, the Paleoamerinds, the Baja California and Tierra del Fuego Amerinds in addition to the Melanesians, the Papuans and the Aborigines all in one group called Australoids. Polynesians are trickier.

If you only go by genes, you have throw everyone, even the Melanesians, everyone but the Papuans and Aborigines, out of Australoids and retain only Papuans and Aborigines in Australoid. This gives us an imperfect view of the Australoid race. I would rather split on skulls. Are the Ati really Filipinos? Are the Semang really Malays? Are the Mansi really Thais? It doesn’t seem right.

On skulls, both Malays and Indonesians are part Australoid. Malay skulls show signs of having recently derived from the Semang and the Senoi. In fact, they call the Semang “our ancestors.” Indonesians are only 20% Taiwanese Aborigine or Paleomongoloid – that is the Mongoloid in them. The other 80% comes from proto-Dai from Yunnan, China who moved down into the area in large numbers when there was a lot flooding 10-20,000 YBP. Proto-Dai were a an Australoid (Melanesian) group. Malays and Indonesians are transitioning from Australoid to Neomongoloid, but they have not completed the transition yet and they retain many Australoid features.

Sure, the Asian race is very old. The genesis of the Asian race was in Northern Vietnam 53,000 YBP. But 53,000 YBP, those proto-Asians in North Vietnam did not look like Mongoloids. Instead, they probably looked like the Semang and Mani (Negrito).

Caucasoids were never a part of the Asian race; instead, Caucasoids are derived from mixing 2/3 Proto-Mongoloid (possibly Ainuid) with 1/3 Paleo-African (possibly Khoisanid).

You say Eurocentric like it’s a bad thing. I am a White man, and I am proudly Eurocentric. I love my great White people and most of my Caucasoid brothers too.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, East Indians, Filipinos, Genetics, Indonesians, Malays, Melanesians, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Semang, South Asians, Taiwanese Aborigines, Vietnam

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.


Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asians, East Indians, Indonesians, Japanese, Melanesians, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, Semang, South Asians, Vietnamese

Modern Hunter-Gatherers in Africa and Elsewhere

Repost from the old site. Deals with the crazy White nationalist notion that African Blacks were “Paleolithic Stone Age hunter-gatherers” on contact. In truth, there are very few hunter-gatherers left not only now, but there were few left even in the last century.

Some commenters on the old site, reacting to the The Development of Agriculture in Africa post, have continued to insist that most modern Black Africans were hunter-gatherers upon contact. Examples are here:

While you are correct in some senses to say that agriculture existed among SOME Black African tribes, MOST Black Africans were not at all agriculturists but remained hunter-gatherers and scavengers well in to modern times.

Only in the past few decades have most Black Africans been FORCED in to adopting agriculture because there are now too many people to feed there and not enough space left in the most populated parts of Africa for hunting/gathering/scavenging…

…There was certainly some agriculture being practiced in Sub-Saharan Africa, I don’t dispute that…however, it was limited and, as I wrote, the majority of Black Africa still got most of their food by hunting/gathering/foraging and not through systematic forms of agriculture.

Because of its tropicality, many parts of Africa were/are lush and full of food which is easy to find and eat, fruits and berries and nuts and such, or easy to hunt game — thus why would they waste their time with intensive, work-heavy agriculture when much was already available to just grab and eat?

Also, as is the case elsewhere, some tribes were more agricultural than others — you cannot make a blanket statement saying  “ALL Black Africans practiced agriculture” when the fact is that many/most were still nomads, or herders, or hunters, or foragers, or some combination thereof.

This is just so wrong, but it’s standard White nationalist tripe. This nonsense needs to be combated head-on.

I am doing some research on this right now. The sequence of civilization follows this pattern:

Paleolithic: Hunter-gatherers, Stone Age.

Neolithic: Agriculture and/or animal husbandry Agriculture + animal husbandry is called “full array” agriculture, stone tools.

Copper Age: Metallurgy involving copper.

Bronze Age: More advanced metallurgy involving bronze.

Iron Age: Even more advanced metallurgy involving iron.

That’s about where it ends.

Modern Paleolithic hunter-gatherers included many of the tribes of the Americas, especially in North America and the Amazon.

There are not a lot of hunter-gatherers in the modern era.

Of course there were many in North America. And all of the Aborigines were hunter-gatherers.

An Australian Aborigine in a classic photo from Coon. All Aborigines were Paleolithic Stone Age hunter-gatherers on contact. Some, disgusted by civilization and living on land that is hardly suitable for farming or herding anyway, have actually pretty much returned to this lifestyle on their reservations.

Many of the Siberian tribes were said to be hunter-gatherers. Eskimos like the Yupik were hunter-gatherers, as were the Chukchi.

In Siberia, the Itelmen, the Khanty, the Nganasan, the Evenki, the Ket, the Yukaghir and the Nivkhi were all said to be hunter-gatherers.

In Japan, the Ainu were hunter-gatherers.

The Ainu of Japan, seen here in this woman in a traditional costume, were hunter-gatherers. The Neolithic Japanese took them out over several hundred years, but bred in with them extensively. The Japanese genome is about 40% Ainu and 60% Korean, which is interesting considering that the Japanese can’t stand either of these groups and consider both of them to be inferior. So what this means really is that the Japanese hate their own grandparents. Put that in your sushi and eat it, Japs.

There are two groups of modern African hunter-gatherers:

The Mikea of Southwestern Madagascar. In fact, they are not pure Africans – they are Africans mixed with Indonesian. Mikea gathering. Mikea hunting. Mikea fishing . Hunter-gatherers were discovered in Madagascar by the first Europeans who went there.

The Mikea of Madagascar. Now heavily acculturated, they trade, farm, practice animal husbandry and even wear modern clothing. As you can see, they are just Malagasy like the rest of the people on this island. There is a theory that these people were former agriculturalists who returned to hunter-gathering due to persecutions, but I’m not sure if that’s proven.

The Okiek or Dorobo of Kenya. This is the lone Bantu hunter-gatherer group. This site has a lot of photos of them. More here and here.

A Dorobo woman in Kenya. This group is now acculturated and has assimilated to surrounding tribes. This woman has assimilated to the Masai and many Dorobo now speak Masai. Many, if not all, now are herders, farmers and whatnot. As you can see, anthropologically, she is a modern African, not an archaic African. The appearance here is Nilotic, but others look Bantu.

There were a few hunter-gatherers in India, including the Chenchu, the Birhor, the Nyaka, the Paliyan and the Andaman Islanders. The Andaman Islanders are still hunter-gatherers.

In SE Asia, there were the Aeta, the Batek, the Batak, the Jahai and the Dulong/Drung/Derung.

The Aeta are the Negritos of the Philippines.

A Philippines Negrito man and woman. The women are said to be excellent hunters, and actually have a success rate double that of the men! The women also hunt with dogs very well. So Sarah Palin was like this modern day Paleolithic moose-hunter newscaster beauty queen White trash babe channeling her Negrito cousins! Right?

The Batek, the Batak and the Jahai are Negrito groups in Malaysia on the Malay Peninsula. Collectively, they are known as Semang in Malaysia and Mani in Thailand.

A photo of Malay Negritos. Tribes include the Batak, the Batek and the Jahai. DNA studies have shown that these are the most ancient out of Africa people on Earth – descendants of the very first humans out of Africa. There are lines here going back some 70,000 years. As you can see by looking at the eyes though, these are clearly Asians.

Here are some scary, macho-looking Malay Negrito men. There are some pretty interesting phenotypes there. Some of them look Melanesian or Papuan.

More Malay Negritos. Note the wavy hair of the guy in the back. Indian Veddoids and Australian Aborigines also have wavy hair.

The last one, the Drung, is a very interesting group living in Yunnan where China, Burma and Tibet all come together.

The location of the Drung can be seen in the yellow portion at the top left of the map. The region where they live is pretty much a tropical rainforest.

The Drung are probably the only known hunter-gatherer group from China.

Here are some Drung people engaging in some ceremony involving a cow. I guess they kill it here. There are only about 6,700 of these people left, but the language is still doing well. It’s still unwritten. Formerly, it was only written on bark in small phrases or words. Note the wavy hair on the guy in the back. These people could be related to Veddoids in part.

Drung women participating in some ceremony. They are pretty acculturated now and practice farming, read, write, trade, etc. These women just look Chinese to me, but this picture does not have good resolution and I’m not very good at parsing out Asian types.

Getting back to Africa, Africa in the Iron Age: c.500 BC-1400 AD, Chapter 3, Late Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers in Africa South of the Equator, quotes Malcolm Guthrie, the great Africanist linguist, on the subject.

It’s true that agriculture came to this region (Africa south of the Equator) later, but it did come in the past 2,000 years. The proto-Bantus expanded out from the Cameroon-Nigeria border region and rapidly colonized all of Southern Africa. The Paleolithics they displaced were mostly or all Khoisan types – archaic Africans, not modern Africans.

This is known as the Bantu expansion. It was driven by agriculture and in particular iron technology. We can reconstruct many terms for agricultural crops in proto-Bantu but not many for hunting. This was clearly primarily an agricultural-based culture. We can also reconstruct terms for iron implements and tools. Yes, Bantus were smelting iron 2,000 years ago. Some primitives.

White nationalists really need to dump this “Africans are/were primitives” crap. It’s true that they did not reach a very high level of civilization, but they definitely had settled agriculture, animal husbandry and metalworking. Those are some profound cultural achievements in their own right.

It also doesn’t have a lot to do with IQ. Hunter-gatherers in Siberia and Japan probably have IQ’s around 95-100 or so, but not much research has been done. Eskimo hunter-gatherers have IQ’s around 91. True Stone Age hunter-gatherers in the Americas have IQ’s around 87. Metalworking, herding African agriculturalists have IQ’s around 67.

Go figure.


Lee, Richard B. and Daly, Richard Heywood. 1999. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oliver, Roland and Fagan, Brian M. 1975. Brian M. Africa in the Iron Age: c.500 BC-1400 AD. Chapter 3: Late Stone Age Hunter-Gatherers in Africa South of the Equator, pp.22-33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.


Filed under Aborigines, Aeta, Agricutlure, Ainu, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, Dorobo, Drung, Mikea, Negritos, Race/Ethnicity, Reposts From The Old Site, Semang, Siberians