Category Archives: Papuans

Simplification of Language with Increasing Civilization: A Result of Contact or Civilization Itself

Nice little comment here on an old post, Primitive People Have Primitive Languages and Other Nonsense? 

I would like to dedicate this post to my moronic field of study itself, Linguistics, which believes in many a silly thing as consensus that have never been proved and are either untrue or probably untrue.

One of the idiocies of my field is this belief that in some way or another, most human languages are pretty much the same. They believe that no language is inherently better or worse than any other language, which itself is quite a dubious proposition right there.

They also believe, incredibly, that no language is more complex or simple than any other language. Idiocy!

Another core belief is that each language is perfectly adapted for its speakers. This leads to their rejecting claims that some languages are unsuitable for the modern world due to lack of modern vocabulary. This common belief of many minority languages is obviously true. Drop a Papuan in Manhattan, and see what good his Torricelli tongue does him. He won’t have words for most of the things around him. He won’t even have verbs for most of the actions he sees around him. His language is nearly useless in this environment.

My field also despises notions that some languages are better suited to poetry, literature or say philosophy than others or that some languages are more or less concise or exact than others or that certain concepts or ways of thinking are better expressed in one language as opposed to another. However, this is a common belief among polyglots, and I would not be surprised if it was true.

The question we are dealing with below is based on the notion that many primitive languages are exceeding complex and the common sense observation that as languages acquire more speakers and civilization increases, one tends to see a simplification of language.

My field out and out rejects both statements.

They will tell you that primitive languages are no more complex than more civilized tongues and that there is no truth to the statement that languages simplify with greater numbers of speakers and increased civilization. However, I have shot these two rejected notions to many non-linguists, and they all felt that these statements had truth to them. Once again, my field violates common sense in the name of the abstract and abstruse “we can’t prove anything about anything” scientific nihilism so common in the intellectually degraded social sciences.

Indeed, some of the most wildly complex languages of all can be found among rather primitive peoples such as Aborigines, Papuans, Amerindians and even Africans. Most language isolates like Ket, Burashaski and Basque are pretty wild. The languages of the Caucasus are insanely complex, and that region doesn’t exactly look like Manhattan. Siberian languages are often maddeningly complex.

Even in China, in the remoter parts of China, language becomes highly differentiated and probably more complex. I know an American who was able to learn Cantonese and Mandarin who told me that at age 35, for an American to learn Hokkien was virtually impossible. He tried various schemes, but they all failed. He finally started to get a hold of the language with a strict eight hour a day study schedule. Anything less resulted in failure. Hokkien speakers that he spoke too said you needed to grow up speaking Hokkien to be able to speak the language well at all. By the way, this is another common sense notion that linguists reject. They say there are no languages so difficult that it is very hard to pick them up unless you grew up with them.

The implication here is that Min Nan is even more complex than the difficult Mandarin or even the forbidding Cantonese, which even many Mandarin speakers give up trying to learn because it is too hard.

Min Nan comes out Fujian Province, a land of forbiddingly high mountains where language differentiation is very high, and there is often difficult intelligibility even from village to village. In one area, fifteen years ago an American researcher decided to walk to a nearby village. It took him six very difficult hours over steep mountains. He could have taken the bus, but that was a four-day trip! A number of these areas had no vehicle roads until recently and others were crossed by vast rivers that had no bridges across them. Transportation was via foot. Obviously civilization in these parts of China is at a more primitive level, and it’s hard to develop Hong Kong-style cities in places with such isolating and rugged terrain.

It’s more like, “Oh, those people on the other side of the ridge? We never go there, but we heard that their language is a lot different from ours. It’s too hard to go over that range so we never go to that area.”

In the post, I theorized that as civilization increased, time becomes money, and there is a need to get one’s point across quickly, whereas more primitive peoples often spend no more than 3-4 hours a day working and the rest sitting around, playing  and relaxing. A former Linguistics professor told me that one theory is that primitive people, being highly intelligent humans (all humans are highly intelligent by default), are bored by their primitive lives, so they enjoy their wildly complex languages and like to relax, hang out and play language games with them to test each other on how well they know the structures. They also like to play tricky and maybe humorous language games with their complicated languages. In other words, these languages are a source of intellectual stimulation and entertainment in an intellectually impoverished area.

Of course, my field rejects this theory as laughably ridiculous, but no one has disproven it yet, and I doubt if the hypothesis has even been tested, hence it is an open question. My field even tends to reject the notion of open questions, preferring instead to say that anything not proven (or even tested for that matter) is demonstrably false. That’s completely anti-scientific, but that’s the trend nowadays across the board as scientistic thinking replaces scientific thinking.

Of course this is in line with the terrible conservative or reactionary trend in science where Science is promoted to a fundamentalist religion and scientists decide that various things are simply proven true or proven not true and attempts to change the consensus paradigm are regarded derisively or with out and out fury and rage and such attempts are rejected via endless moving of goalposts with the goal of making it never possible to prove the hypothesis. If you want to see an example of this in Linguistics, look at the debate around  Altaic. They have set it up so that no matter how much existing evidence we are able to gather for the theory, we will probably never be able to prove it as barriers to proof have been set up to make the question nearly unprovable.

It’s rather senseless to set up Great Wall of China-like barriers to proof in science because at some point,  you are hardly proving anything new, apparently because you don’t want to.

Fringe science is one of the most hated branches of science and many scientists refer to it as pseudoscience. Practitioners of fringe science have a very difficult time as the Scientific Establishment often persecutes them, for instance trying to get them fired from professorships. Yet this Establishment is historically illiterate because many of the most stunning findings in history were made by widely ridiculed fringe scientists.

The commenter below rejects my theory that increased civilization itself results in language simplification, as it gets more important to get your point across as quickly  as possible with increasing complexity and development of society. Instead he says civilization leads to increased contact between speakers of different dialects or language, and in such cases,  language must be simplified, often dramatically, in order for any decent communication to occur. Hence increased contact, not civilization in and of itself, is the driver of simplification.

I like this theory, and I think he may be onto something.

To me the simplification of languages of more ‘civilized’ people is mostly a product of language contact rather than of civilization itself. If the need arises to communicate with foreign people all of the time, for example in trade, then the language must become more simple in order to be able to be understood by more people.

Also population size matters a lot. It has been found that the greater the number of speakers, the greater the rate of language change. For example Polynesian languages, although having been isolated centuries or even millennia ago, still have only minor differences from one another.

In the case of many speakers, not all will be able to learn all the rules of a language, so they will tend to use the most common ones. And if the language is split in many dialects, then speakers of each dialect must find a compromise in order to communicate, which might come out as simple. If we add sociolects, specific registers for some occasions, sacred registers, slang etc, something that will arise in a big and stratified civilization, then the linguistic barriers people will need to overcome become greater. So it is just normal that after some centuries, this system to simplify.

We don’t need to look farther than Europe. Most languages of the western half being spoken in countries with strong trade links to one another and with much of the world later in history are quite analytic, but the languages of the more isolated eastern part are still like the older Indo-European languages. Basques, living in a small isolated pocket in the Iberian Peninsula, have kept a very complex language. Icelanders, also due to isolation, have kept a quite conservative Germanic language, whereas most modern Germanic languages are ridiculously simplified. No one can argue in his sane mind that Icelanders are primitives.

On the other hand, Romanian, being spoken in the more isolated Balkans, has retained more of the complex morphology of Latin compared to West Romance languages. And of course advance of civilization won’t automatically simplify the language, as Turkish and Russian, both quite complicated languages compared to the average European tongue, don’t seem to give up their complexity nowadays.

On the other hand, indigenous people were living in a much more isolated setting compared to the modern world, the number of speakers was comparatively low, and there was no need to change. Also, neighboring tribes were often hostile to one another, so each tribal group sought to make itself look special. That is the reason why places with much inter-tribal warfare like New Guinea have so many languages which are so different from one another. When these languages need to communicate, we get ridiculously simple contact languages like Hiri Motu.
So language simplification is more a result of language contact rather than civilization itself.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Altaic, Amerindians, Anthropology, Applied, Asia, Basque, Cantonese, Caucasus, China, Chinese language, Cultural, Dialectology, Europe, Germanic, Indo-European, Isolates, Language Families, Language Learning, Linguistics, Mandarin, Min Nan, Near East, Papuans, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russian, Science, Siberian, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Turkic, Turkish

Veddoid Skulls, Genes and Phenotypes

Ultra Cool writes:

The Ainu are related to the Japanese, I assume that makes Veddas Mongoloid by genes, Australoid by skull and Caucasoid by looks, correct?

Not really. I mean Veddoid genes either look NE Asian or Malaysian in the case of the Senoi in Thailand or South Indian in the case of South Indian tribals.

So Veddoid genes have no particular quality. They simply assimilate to the genetics of whatever larger group they are around.

Negritos are similar. The pure genetic Negritos are in the Andaman Islands, and indeed their genes are very distinct. However, the rest of the Negritos simply have genes that look like whoever they are around. Thai Negritos have genes that look Thai. Filipino Negritos have genes that look Filipino. Indonesian Negritos have genes that look Indonesian. New Guinean Negritos have genes that look Papuan. Australian Negritos have genes that look Aborigine, and so on. This is because everywhere they went, the Negritos, a small group, bred in the much larger group until their genes began to resemble the larger group.

Yes, Veddoids do tend to have similar looking Australoid skulls everywhere they exist.

And yes, they do tend to have a “Caucasoid” phenotype everywhere they exist simply because this is somehow what they evolved in India, which then carried on to other places they went to. This Caucasoid phenotype is a result of convergent evolution and in way whatsoever proves that any of these peoples are actually Caucasoid.

I feel that the range of possible human phenotypes is small, so “Asian”, “Caucasian”, or “Negroid/African” are three of the most common phenotypes resulting in humans. These phenotypes can probably evolve just about anywhere because the range of possible end-types for phenotypes may be small. If it’s small, sooner or later, you will have people who look “Negroid” or “Caucasoid” simply due to the law of averages. There are a lot of “Negroid” looking people in Melanesia, among Negritos, among Papuans, and even among some Central Americans such as we see in the Olmec statues. “Negroid” just appears to be a sort of phenotype that may evolve in very hot or tropical weather, possibly because a lot of Negroid attritubes are adaptive in the tropics.

Veddoids may have evolved in India over 18,000 YBP, so they are a very archaic race.

After that, they appear to have gone from India to Thailand, possibly by sea. Skulls from Thailand 18,000 YBP look very much like Jomonese skulls from Japan and Ainu skulls today.

Before 18,000 YBP: Veddoids evolve in India.

18,000 YBP: Veddoids go to Thailand. Their descendants become the Senoi.

13,000 YBP: Veddoids show up in far southern Japan (possibly Okinawa) as the Jomonese, the ancestors of the Ainu and the first people to settle Japan that we know of. They arrive here from Thailand. They appear to have gone from Thailand to Japan by boat. No one knows when they left Thailand or how look it took them to get to Japan, but sometime in that 5,000 year period from 18,000 YBP to 13,000 YBP, they move in between Thailand and Japan by boat. Old anthropological theory said that a long time ago, one of the early peoples of the Philippines resembled what to me look like the Ainu, so they may have stopped in the Philippines at some point between 18,000 YBP and 13,000 YBP en route from Thailand to Japan by sea.

11 Comments

Filed under Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, Genetics, India, Indonesia, Japan, NE Asia, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asia, Thailand

White Nationalists What’s Behind the Pretty-Faced Lies They Front with

But I think that White nationalism is such an extreme and brutal movement that even with the nicest of White nationalists, sooner or later, some really nasty racist talk is going to come out. There’s probably no way for them not to do it. It’s probably nearly a rule.

Let’s face it, the White nationalists are most racist of even all the racists. I did not know much about them when I first ran into them on the Net and I believed all their lies. They told me that they didn’t hate any non-Whites at all. Instead, they were lovers. They simply loved their own race and meant no ill will towards others. They simply wished to live with the people they loved. They told me that they were not racists at all really. Instead, they were cynical “race realists” who had reluctantly come around to basic differences between the races. They were not White Supremacists at all. They did not think Whites were superior to other races. They were careful to point out that White nationalists and White Supremacists were two different things and most White nationalists were not White Supremacists.

I soon realized that these were all lies. All White nationalists are White Supremacists. Sure not all White Supremacists are White nationalists, but nowadays a lot of them are. The longer you lurk around these White nationalist websites, the more you realize that these are exactly the same people that we used to call White Supremacists back in the day. Even on the mildest White nationalist sites like American Renaissance, there are references to folks we used to call White Supremacists, whom they see as heroes. David Duke is a hero; he was a KKK leader. There are frequent references to the 14 words. The links between the mild, polite face sites like Amren and the deeper and darker hardcore sites like Stormfront, VNN, and many of the Alt Right sites are much deeper than you think. They’re sort of all linked up together as far as I can see.

It’s not true that the only love their own race and don’t hate any non-Whites. They may well love their own race but they certainly also hate non-Whites. Not necessarily all non-Whites though, as Amren and Jared Taylor speak highly of Northeast Asians, and Taylor likes Jews and thinks Jews are White.

But they all have an extreme hatred for Blacks and a lot don’t like Hispanics much either. They don’t seem to care about Southeast Asians, South Asian Indians, or the Caucasoids of Central Asia. In fact, there was an Iranian forum at Stormfront for a while. They only dislike Turks, Arabs, etc. in that they are Muslims, otherwise they could care less about them.

Some of them are vicious Nordicists who hate all Mediterranean Whites, but that’s not the majority and it’s not even common on pro-Med Stormfront. Some of them are even sympathetic to American Indians. At any rate, they don’t have much hatred for them. They care next to nothing about Aborigines and they never talk about Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians or Papuans. Those people might as well not even exist.

The only people who hate Polynesians (sea niggers) and Aborigines (Lucys) are Australian White nationalists, and they are not common.

Some Canadian White nationalists hate Amerindians (prairie niggers), but there are not many White nationalists in Canada.

Latin American White nationalists don’t even hate Indians all that much, whom they regard as annoying and verbally violent at worst. As one said, “You give an Indian a six-pack and a handful of tortillas and he’s good for the night. That’s not so with Blacks.” White nationalists down south mostly hate Jews and Blacks. They also have a much more sensible view of who is White. Latin American White nationalists say that anyone who is at least 75-85% White is White in Latin America.

I do not know much about White nationalists in Europe except that they are very worried about Muslims and the one thing many of them hate more than anything else is Gypsies. This is especially true in Eastern Europe. Gypsies are seen as the “thieving niggers” of Europe.

What seems to tie all of the White nationalists together seems to be a hatred for Blacks.

After that, I would say probably a hatred of Jews. Blacks first, then Jews. They barely care about much of anyone other than that. But yeah, they’re haters all right. In fact, I had bought their line that they hated no one and I was stunned at some of the wild hateful statements they started making after a while. I almost fell out of my chair. The civil White nationalist type is mostly a front. There’s pretty much a Stormfronter behind most of those masks.

We’re not racists, we’re just race realists. This is another one of their lines. Well it’s not true. And anyway, almost all race realists are racists, and often nasty ones at that. Nonracist race realists exist, but they are not common and they seem to be swimming against a tide.

42 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Amerindians, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Canada, East Indians, Europe, Iranians, Jews, Latin America, Near Easterners, North America, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Roma, SE Asians, South Asians, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Papuan Barbarism

Waltem writes: Read Lawrence Keeley. “Savage” warfare (like say, in New Guinea) is proportionately more lethal than “civilized” warfare.

Correct. Primitive man leads a short, nasty and brutish existence. As recently as the 1300’s in England, the homicide rate in the larger cities was 50 times higher than it is today in the US. Fifty times higher. We think Latin America is out of control because it has a homicide rate 10X hours. Now imagine a society that is 5 times worse than Honduras. That was urban England in the 1300’s.  Whites were unbelievably barbarous not so long ago themselves. So what happened? How did the homicide rate decline by 98%? Did our genes change? Come on hereditarians, let’s dish it up.

Yes, the Papuans engage in warfare continuously. At least until recently, they habitually molested most if not all of the children, and the children were exposed to incredible violence. Childhood was a time of frequent  beatings from your parents and even your siblings. You probably witnessed your mother murdering one of your newborn on 2-3 year old siblings. You may have even participated because some Papuans force the children to murder their own three year old siblings as some sort of an object lesson. There’s no escaping it warfare and violence in these places.

And when Papuans are put into modern culture, the result has been a complete catastrophe. They cannot function at all in modern society, and Port Moresby is one of the most brutal, savage, barbarous, and out and out dangerous cities on Earth. Many of the Papuans there have formed vicious street gangs and the city has one of the highest rates of violent crime on Earth. Port Moresby is worse than most cities in Africa.

These people are simply not suited for modern society, at the moment anyway, because they are too backwards, barbarous, savage, uncivilized, brutish, incompetent and violent. That 64 IQ no doubt does not help matters. African Blacks were not in a very different place centuries ago  with 67 IQ’s, but centuries in America had a profoundly civilizing effect such that hundreds of years out of Africa, a Black today would probably regard his ancestors from the 1700’s as so brutish and vicious that he probably would not to have anything to do with him.

I suppose 25% White genes in modern Blacks didn’t hurt, but that alone cannot be all of the story. The story is one of acculturation and the civilizing of a profoundly backwards and barbarous race. It is actually incredible how different US Blacks are from those early anthropologists’ findings of Africa. You almost wonder if humans can actually change that much, but apparently they can. Not everyone can become civilized, but people can sure get a Hell of a lot more civilized than they were before. It might take centuries, but it can be done.

All of you hereditarians, how can you possibly explain the almost unheard of transformation of these barbarous Africans into modern Blacks? Their genes are the same. You guys say everything is genes. Fine, well how did these people change so much then?

11 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Blacks, Crime, Cultural, European, Europeans, History, Latin America, North America, Papua New Guinea, Papuans, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Studies, USA, Whites

The India-Australia Connection

The genetic link between India and Australia is not conclusive. Most recent Genetics paper on the earlier mentioned links has found no recent links.

Also Dravidian and Veddoid are 2 different races. Some Veddoid have taken up Dravidian languages just as other Veddoid have taken up Indo-Aryan.

In Sri Lanka is the only distinct Vedda population and they speak a creole that is neither Dravidian nor Indo-Aryan; it shares more with Indo-Aryan but has a substratum that is distinct and different from Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. India does not have distinct Vedda populations as they have linguistically and culturally assimilated into the surrounding Dravidian,Indo-Aryan and Munda speaking populations.

I would certainly agree that a recent India-Australia link is not proven.

My argument was that those people we call Aborigines are new people. Supposedly they supplanted most of the original people. They are said to have come from India and Thailand 12-17,000 YBP. Any genetic relation that far back will not show up in genes.

Furthermore, Veddoids and other primitive types in India (yes, there are some in India, not just Sri Lanka) have skulls that plot Australoid next to Papuans, Melanesians and Aborigines. If there is no connection, why do they have the same skulls? Tamils also have Australoid skulls showing the same connections.

There is a very ancient and primitive group in Nepal called the Nahali. The language was long thought to be an isolate and was recently thought to be extinct. However some speakers were found not long ago. More recent though highly controversial studies suggest that Nahali is an Indo-Pacific language related to the languages of New Guinea. I believe this connection is correct. If there is no connection between India and Australia, why the language connection?

Also, the Andaman Islanders are Australoids by skulls. So once again we have an Australian connection with the most primitive people of India by skulls. Some theories suggest that the Andaman languages, long considered isolates, are related to Indo-Pacific languages. Joseph Greenberg thought so. I am not sure how well that is backed up, but if it is true, once again, we see a connection between India and Australia.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asia, Australia, Dravidian, East Indians, India, Language Families, Linguistics, Melanesians, Negritos, Nepal, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, South Asia, South Asians, Sri Lankans

Racial Categorization- The Oceanian Paradox

ultracool writes: This is a very interesting and insightful post, I see you are very intelligent and bold to write all this stuff, Robert. Still I think the problem with genes is that they don’t always match appearance, I think that were you to sort races according to physical traits only, you could put most Oceanians in the same race as Africans, as they share several traits like dark skin, thick lips and kinky hair, though I am not sure about Australians as they have quite a distinct look.

Even if you do physical appearance, you cannot throw those people in with Africans. Those people are Australoids – Melanesians, Papuans, Negritos, Senoi, Veddoids, Tamils, Aborigines, a few Polynesians, Ainu and a few Amerindians such as Tierra del Fuegans and some Baja Californians have very similar skulls. All of the skulls plot right together on a chart. Granted, Australoid and African skulls are close to each other on charts, but they do plot differently.

Polynesians and Micronesians are different – they are an Australoid-Mongoloid mix. Their genes plot with Asians, and their skulls plot differently from Australoids. However, some Polynesian skulls plot next to other Australoids such as the Ainu.

Australoid genes are all over the map. Melanesian genes plot next to other Oceanians with a subgroup of Island SE Asians that also includes some Indonesians. Philippines Negritos plot with Filipinos. Thai Negritos plot with Thais. Andaman Islanders plot off on their own, possibly in two completely different major races. Veddoids and Tamils plot with the other Indian Caucasians. Papuans and Aborigines are related only to each other and even then only very distantly, and they are very far from everyone else. Next to Africans and Andaman Islanders, Papuans and Aborigines are are the other oldest races. Outside of Africa, Andaman Islanders and Thai Negritos are the oldest races.

15 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Amerindians, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asians, Blacks, East Indians, Filipinos, Indonesians, Melanesians, Micronesians, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, SE Asians, South Asians, Thai

More on the Finest Mixed Race of Them All – The “Hapa”

S. D. writes: Eastern Europeans have some Asian blood in them-Charles Bronson was an example-all the way West to Hungary (Named after Huns from Northern China).

Finns, though blonde, also derive some ancient Asian genes through the Lapps who were apparently present when the Germanic tribes migrated Northwards in antiquity.

The Filipino ruling-class are Eurasians.

My point is this ain’t nothing new under the sun, folks,

The grandchild of a white male and an Asian female that is 1/4 Asian looks no different than an Eastern European.

That is why the continent is called Eurasia.

Japanese are some ancient mixture of Caucasoid Ainu from Russia and ancient migrations from Korean peninsula (In this instance the Asians exterminated the whites).

Manchurian Chinese are Eurasians from the steppes of Soviet Siberia.

What is the big deal?

I love a lot of mixed race people because I think a lot of mixed race people are even more beautiful than those of the pure races that formed them. Further, some races that are not very attractive to me can create very beautiful people by mixing with another race. Even some mixed Aborigine-White women can be quite beautiful. One is a famous Australian model.

East Europeans do not have much Asian blood in them – maybe 3% in Czechs and not a whole lot more in your average Russian. It’s less than 12% at any rate. Finns and Turks are 7% Asian, a bit more.

Go look up some photos of people like the Mansi and the Khanty. Very, very mixed Asian-White to the point where you see people with blue eyes and blond hair next to people who look very Asiatic – very strange looking but somehow beautiful.

Some of the groups around the Altai like the Altai people and the Khakas are also extremely mixed – more or less 50-50 in those cases but really more like 40-45% White and 55-60% Asian. These are the ancestors of most Amerindians.

Tatars and Bashkirs are also extremely mixed, although I believe they are mostly White. Nevertheless some of the women look very Asiatic.

Turkmen are also very mixed – I think they might be 40% Asian.

The Ainu are not Caucasoids either by genes of by skulls. On skulls they are Australoids – basically depigmented Northern Veddoids – and on genes are they are simply Asians. People think they are Caucasoids because Veddoids have look somewhat Caucasoid themselves and a depigmented Veddoid can look (falsely) quite Caucasoid and also because the mix between an Australoid and a Mongoloid or Paleomongoloid can often appear mysteriously quite Caucasoid in phenotype. Check out the Ainu and the Veddoids, some Polynesians, Papuans and even Aborigines, some Southeast Asians such as some Khmers, and especially the Taiwanese aborigines who often look very “Caucasoid.”

Northern Chinese may well have Caucasoid in them from way back, but the genes are no longer present. Mongolians have more White in them – they are 14% Caucasoid.

22 Comments

Filed under Ainu, Amerindians, Anthropology, Asians, Chinese (Ethnic), Eurasia, Europeans, Finns, Khmer, Mixed Race, Mongolians, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Physical, Polynesians, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asians, Siberia, Taiwanese Aborigines, Turks, Whites

Veddoids In Modern and Ancient Asia: A Predominant Type?

Pepperoncini writes:

I think when you say Australoid, you mean Veddoid, and Vedda people are distinct and different from Dravidians, including Tamils. Tamils have a range of phenotypes. Tamil-speaking groups can range from very dark with low nose bridge and broad noses to dark, normal nose bridge and average nasal index.

Whatever the Tamils may appear to be, when we put Tamil skulls on a graph, they plot with the Senoi, Negritos, Andaman Islanders, Papuans and similar groups.

The Senoi are an Australoid group that are best seen as Veddoids transplanted to Southern China and then to Thailand 5,000 YBP. From 5-15,000 YBP, Veddoid types may have been widespread throughout Asia. The pre-Jomon in Thailand 16,000 YBP have skulls that plot closely with the Jomonese later in Japan at 13,000 YBP. If you compare photos of modern day Ainu people with Veddoids from India, it is clear that the Ainu are a depigmented group of Northern Veddoids.

There are also traces of Veddoid types in the Philippines long ago where reports of oddly Caucasoid-looking people appear in the anthropological record. They may have been part of the group that moved from Thailand to southern Japan between 13-16,000 YBP because the Philippines would be along this route.

So also would be Australia.

And indeed, the first modern Aborigines appear in the form of a group called Murrayans that arrived between 15-20,000 YBP. The best guess is that the Murrayans were the same group of Veddoids that were present in Thailand at this time and the migration may have part of the same Thailand-Japan migration that the pre-Jomonese undertook.

This is probably not the only Veddoid migration to Australia. Between 10-15,000 YBP, a group called the Carpinterians arrived, apparently from Southern India. Consider that all people in India are termed “Australoid” before 8,000 YBP when the Australoid-Caucasoid transition begins possibly with the arrival of the first actual Dravidians, probably Elamites from western Iran. These pre-8,000 YBP Australoids in India then could probably best be called Veddoids.

Australoid types were present long before in India in India and Southeast Asia as skulls from India and Thailand 25,000 YBP are said to resemble Aborigines. Their relationship to the Australoid Veddoid group that shows up at least 16,000 YBP is not known.

The modern Aborigines are a mix between Carpinterians and Murrayans that arrived 13-17,000 YBP in the subcontinent and subsequently interbred.

Before that, some very different and even more archaic people lived in Australia.

12 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, China, India, Iran, Japan, NE Asia, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asia, Thailand

Archaic Hominids Surviving into the Modern Era

Prior to the arrival of the modern Aborigines in Australia, an even more archaic group lived in the subcontinent.

The Kow Swamp skull from 22,000 YBP in Australia represents some of these people. This is one of the most archaic skulls ever found during the modern Homo sapiens era. Although Kow Swamp is called Homo Sapiens, the skull has prominent Homo Erectus features. It is probably a mix between more modern Sapiens types and more archaic and Erectus-like pre-Sapiens types. It is now known that pre-Sapiens archaic hominids survived in the form of Denisova Man from 39,000 YBP in southern Russia, Sulu Man from Indonesia 25,000 YBP, the Red Deer Cave people from central China, Flores Man from Flores Island in Indonesia, and Neandertals from the Russian subarctic, all from 12,000 YBP.

Based on probably true accounts of local people, Flores Man appears to have survived into the late 1800’s, when their habits of stealing human children and eating them finally enraged the local humans so much that they set fire to the main cave where the Flores People lived.

The Neandertals and Red Deer Cave people are assumed to have died out 12,000 YBP when their last traces were found.

Denisova Man is kn own  only from the single cave in southern Russia 39,000 YBP,  but his genes are also present in Papuans and Melanesians. These Australoid groups appeared in the region ~40,000 YBP. So Denisova Man was also present in Oceania around the same time that he was living in Russia.

Sulu Man is thought to be actually a very late surviving Erectus.

Flores Man is also Erectus, a very primitive type going all the way back to the earliest Habilis era of Erectus around the time of the split between Australopithecus.

Denisova Man is a new type resembling Neandertal and best seen as very early archaic Sapiens.

Red Deer Cave people are probably best seen as very late surviving Heidelbergensis types. Heidelbergensis is an archaic Sapiens type that is known from southern Europe, mostly Spain, from 500,000 YBP. They are best seen as Erectus-Sapiens transitionals.

Neandertals of course are archaic Sapiens similar to Denisovans.

1 Comment

Filed under Anthropology, Asia, Australia, China, Eurasia, Europe, Indonesia, Melanesians, Oceanians, Pacific, Papuans, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, SE Asia

The Australoid Connection Between India and Australia

There were originally Australoids in Australia of course, but no one knows what they looked like. The may have looked like Negritos. The first Whites to Australia had stories about Aborigines waging wars of extermination on very small and very dark people whose description looks a lot like Negritos. The original Aborigines may have looked like either Negritos, Papuans or Melanesians. Papuans have an Australoid line going back a long ways. The Melanesian line goes back 40,000 YBP and is incredibly diverse.

Most modern Aborigines are a mixture of Murrayans who came out of Thailand ~17,000 YBP and went to Australia, the Philippines and eventually to Japan 13,000 YBP. This was a Veddoid type group that eventually became the Ainu in Japan. Yet another group was known as Carpinterians. They came from India 13,000 YBP. Some of the more primitive looking tribals or even possibly Tamils may be related to this group, as they do look something like modern Aborigines.

The modern day Aborigines are a mixture between Carpinterians and Murrayans.

7 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, India, Japan, Melanesians, NE Asia, Negritos, Northeast Asians, Oceanians, Papuans, Philippines, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, South Asia