Although a couple of our commenters have been citing a lot of the accomplishments of black Africa, Dr. Michael H. Hart paints a very different picture in his book Understanding Human History. Hart’s book was published in 2007 so some of his claims may no longer be accepted as the archeological record has since become more complete and politically correct.
For starters, Hart claims that farming was not practiced in Africa until it was brought to Egypt by Southwest Asians in 6000 BC and from there it spread to Ethiopia, Sudan and then West Africa by 3000 BC. Central and Southern Africa however, were still living in the paleolithic until 1000 BC, according to Hart.
By 600 BC iron smelting occurred in Nigeria. Hart writes “It seems probable that knowledge of iron work had been introduced from the North or brought from the eastern Sudan.” Introduced or brought in by Caucasoids?
Hart notes that prior to 1500, sub-Saharan Africa could be divided into two wildly different sections. The exposed zone and the secluded zone. The exposed zone was all the parts that were in contact with Caucasoids, such as West Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia, small remote parts of the Indian Ocean colonized by Arab traders, and parts of the Atlantic coast where Portuguese traders had set up shop. The rest of sub-Saharan Africa was the secluded zone. A terrifying region roughly twice the size of Europe.
While the exposed zone was not poor, and benefitted from written languages brought by Muslim slave traders, Hart feels the indigenous peoples still failed to make a single contribution to World civilization.
But it is the vast secluded zone that bears the brunt of Hart’s poison pen. Described as a primitive and backward region until as recently as the 19th century, Hart notes that there were:
-no wheeled vehicles, nor even the potter’s wheel
– no method of even joining together pieces of wood
-no beasts of burden or draft animals (though cattle was raised)
-not a single written language in the entire region, and thus no law codes, no philosophical works, no literature or even oral epic-poetry
-no coins or money
– no math beyond simple arithmetic,
-no cities beyond small towns, no temples, large monuments nor domes, arches, schools, hospitals, libraries nor paved roads. Hart credits the ruins of Great Zimbabwe as the most notable construction in the secluded zone, but feels it was nothing compared to the Machu Picchu in South America, or Cambodia’s Angkor Wat complex, or Mesoamerica’s large cities and religious buildings. Hart notes that the giant statues on the tiny isolated Polynesian Easter Island were more impressive than anything found in the entire, secluded zone of black Africa.
-Almost no maritime skills. Hart notes the stunning fact that it took Indonesians from the other side of the Indian Ocean, coming from 3000 miles away, to inhabit Madagascar in 500 AD, because Africans still had not reached it, even though it was only 250 miles off the East African coast. Nor did they reach the Cape Verde Islands, just a few hundred miles off the West African coast.
Hart also claims the secluded zone was primitive when it came to political and ethical matters, noting the lack of democracy and civil liberties and the common use of slavery and occasional cannibalism.
Why was the secluded zone of black Africa so far behind virtually everyone else on Earth? In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond argues that black Africa was simply cut off from the rest of the World, and thus didn’t have access to advances in knowledge, however Hart rejects this explanation because Native Americans were even more geographically isolated than black Africans, yet their societies were so much more advanced.
Instead Hart favours the cold winters explanation. Races who left Africa tens of thousands of years ago, and got at least some exposure to the ice age, evolved higher intelligence to survive the cold, and once the ice age ended, this allowed them to create advanced culture and technologies.
Update Oct 1, 2017:
On Sept 25, 2017, commenter Jm8 wrote the following rebuttal to Hart’s narrative:
Some of his claims are no longer accepted because the archaeological and historical record has become more complete, but others were not accepted in 2007 (or were heavily doubted) either and have been undermined or unsupported by evidence prior to that.
Michael Hart is not a historian or an archaeologist, or anthropologist, etc (or has any similar such background, let alone a scholar of Africa) (apparently he is astrophysicist). And his statements on Africa (and perhaps his purpose in writing on the subject at all) seems likely to be primarily ideological and politically motivated more than anything else, since he had no backgroud in it or in any related field). Much of his activity outside of Physics has been in association with white separatist and other racialist and far right organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_H._Hart
“no literature or even oral epic-poetry”
The second is very untrue and such was known before 2007.
Epic poetry is found all over West Africa as much as Central Africa (especially, but not only among the Mande and other peoples of the Mali region, the Senegambia and Guinea, who have casted hereditary bards—a custom that originated with them and has been adopted by some neighboring tribes. The animistic hunters’ societies of many tribes, more primitive and believed to be extremely ancient and even older than the bardic tradition, have a specialized body/tradition of epic songs as well). Long form epics and oral history/mythology are also found among many of the non-Mande peoples of the Western savannah Burkina, N. Ghana, and further south in the forest region: (just to give a few examples) among the Ashanti/Akan, Ewe, Yoruba (who have a genre of oral literature called Oriki, as well as a body of sacred poems memorized by their Ifa priests). The Fang, Beti and the Bamileke (and Bamoum, Bafut, etc.) and neighboring tribes in Central Africa Cameroon and Gabon are also especially noted for their epics (traditionally played to a stringed instrument called the Mvet—especially associated with epics and battle songs), as are the peoples of the Lakes region of East Central Africa (The Baganda, Haya, BaRwanda, etc), and the peoples of parts of Congo (e.g. the Lianja epic of the Mongo people)
Most of West Africa was not in contact with caucasoids when its most notable civilizations formed (as I explained in the comments of the last post). Iron working in Nigeria predates 600 bc as well as ironworking in the lands of the nearest caucasoids (who thus are unlikely to have introduced it).
One written language was created in s Africa (Nsibidi), which show no sign of foreign origin (it is very unlike any other script and all surrounding regions had no scripts). Anyway independently invented scripts are rare historically (and there is no evidence of them in Europe).
“Native Americans were even more geographically isolated than black Africans, yet their societies were so much more advanced.”
This is generally not true (in many cases the reverse is true esp. of North America and South America outside the Andes). The argument could be made only of Native Americans in parts of Central America and (as mentioned) much of the Andes (in some respects it might be true in those cases, and in others not).
They claim about a lack of seafaring though (in a sense—that is relative to Europe and Asia), is largely true (the same could be said of Native American cultures, even the most advanced ones, and this likely has a lot to do with geography (Africa has few islands archipelagoes or island groups near the mainland of the kind where seafaring cultures usually evolve: like the Greeks in the Agean, Norse in N. Europe, or Polynesians and their seafaring Southeast Asian ancestors in SE Asia. The Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs/Toltecs did no real sea faring either—or really none at all for the most part. The Amerindians that traveled most by sea were the relatively non-advanced Carib and Arawak Indians (who settled the Caribbean from Venezuela) and, to a lesser extent, the Indians of the North American NorthWest Coast.
As for what did exist:In Africa seafaring (among traditional non-influenced subsaharans) was not nonexistent and substantial seafaring boats made of joined wood—which did exist (about the same size and the extremely large canoes used by the US Indians of British Colombia) for deep sea fishing, travel to nearby islands, and trading along the coast (though not really ships) were used by peoples along the West Africa Coast (before European contact—some of the first Europeans described them when they arrived) by coastal tribes like the Wolof and Lebu of Senegal, the Fanta, Ga and Ashanti in Ghana, and some of the Bantu tribes of coastal Central Africa like the Cameroonian Douala. Ethnolinguist Roger Blench has proposed that early proto Bantu in Central Africa (or branches thereof) may have spread along the Gabon-Congo Coast (the Bantu ancestors of the Bantu Bubi tribe of the Fernando Po/Bioko islands colonized them from the mainland millennia before Europeans arrived. There is also some (albeit tentative) evidence that fisherman and traders of certain West Africa cultures (Parts of South east Nigeria) occasionally reached as far as Gabon and the Northern Congo. In the case of Cape Verde, it’s earliest confirmed (and most likely) discovery (I believe) is by the Portuguese. I have read claims that Lebu fisherman might have rarely visited it before, but I have found not confirmation of that so it may well not be true.
Baganda craft:
Large boats were built by the African groups that lived along large navigable rivers (like the Niger) and lakes (like lake Chad and the lakes of Uganda/Rwanda/Burundi.
Along the Malian Middle Niger long canoe-like cargo barges (make of pieces of wood sewn together) are traditional and are used by various tribes that have lived by fishing and/or riverine trade (the Bozo, Somono, Songhai)—these (the larger ones that is) likely go back at least to the times of Djenne Jeno and (the older) Dia when specialized groups of river traders began to exists (specialized fisherman, or course go back much further, but their boat may have tended smaller since they were not cargo bearing—although the ancestors of the Songhai with their traditions of hunting hippos and crocodiles by boat may have had larger craft earlier. The Ugandan Baganda kingdom had a fleet of boats made for joined wood, as did certain tribes of the S.E Nigerian Niger (some of which had a small deck/cabin at the front—also of joined wood)—though of course these were of course much smaller than ocean-going ships)
Joining pieces of wood was widely necessary an common in may regions, (aside for in the types of boats mentioned) as the common styles of house buildings usually required a wooden/timber frame (sometimes underlying adobe of mud/mud brick as in Central/Souther Nigeria and S. Ghana, or in structures largely made of wood or bamboo as in Central Africa.
Some of the structure-types common in the Cameroon grasslands (Bamileke, Bamoum, Bandjoun tribes, etc) of West Central Africa were shown by Phil in the comments of the last post. I linked a collection of images form Ashanti previously (under the last topic).Some more architecture from that region—down past the first few ancient Nubian images at the top of the forum thread):
The agriculture claim is untrue, and was in doubt for a while before his book (except for the agriculture of N, E, Africa, much of the horn, and the Maghreb which did come from the Middle East through Egypt), and Most SS African agriculture does not come from Egypt or the Magreb and is a distinct tradition.
Michael Hart would probably dismiss a lot of the achievements Jm8 mentions because they occurred in the exposed zone which was in contact with Caucasoids from the Muslim and European worlds, but Jm8 seems to be implying that even when the achievements occurred in the exposed zone, they either predated the Caucasoid exposure, or were still somehow independent of it.
But that begs the question, why was the exposed zone of black Africa so much more advanced than the secluded zone, if the exposure to Caucasoid peoples had nothing to do with it?
As for oral epic poetry not existing in the secluded zone, perhaps this depends on how you define “epic”, as Hart cites the Iliad as an example of epic oral poetry.
Selections pressure to survive can become homeostatic if there is no change. If the environment is changing fast and or in a complex way the most adaptable have kids and that kind of creates a bottleneck of those that cannot adapt. Aboriginals I believe came to Australia 40 thousand years ago but had the primitive technology. There was little cognitive pressures to adapt. When things stay the same you do not need to change what you are doing. If everything stayed the same all the time in Sub-Saharan Africa you would not need to do much to survive by developing the complex technology needed for a complex culture.
What Happened Before History? Human Origins
so the malays who sailed to madagascar were smarter, because their ancestors had experienced cold winters? shouldn’t this be true of the abos too? i thought some still claimed abos are a different species. homo erectus was still present in australia only 10k years ago. maybe they interbred? according to spencer wells the abos and dravidians are descendants of the first and earlier group out of africa. so they’ve had longer to devolve? everyone else is from the second and later group.
using peepee’s retarded theory the plains injuns and eskimos should be the smartest people. cold winters and more branches.
[redacted by pp, sept 24, 2017]
using peepee’s retarded theory the plains injuns and eskimos should be the smartest people. cold winters and more branches.
Actually East Asians and Arctics are the 2 most branched monophyletic races, and East Asians are the smartest race and Arctics are the biggest brained race
Natural selection is from other humans, not the environment. Bantu kill and eat Bushmen. North Africans kill and enslave Bantu. North Africans and Europeans fought for a millennia over who would enslave the other, till the Jews came along. Kicked out of North Africa/Middle East, they become parasites in Europe and crush the Ottoman Empire in WW1. By WW2, Jews enslave the world and establish the Jewnited States of America as a super power.
Only it looks like East Asians are coming back into the spotlight this century and it seems as if it’ll be a battle the Jews cant win. Asians have tremendous numbers and high intelligence.
If it were the environment, Arabs and Arctics would be the smartest races, both living in deserts. Instead, the smartest races develop in the places with the most food. North Africa, Europe and Asia. This is from internal competitive pressure with each other. Once food is no longer an issue, the biggest, strongest, smartest mate with the most females. Humans mastered the environment long ago.
Human height is increasing tremendously as tall guys bang the most women and have the most kids. Intelligence is also increasing, despite evidence to the contrary.
Histomap of evolution. Also very pretty.
Yeah ive been saying the same thing as fenoopy for months. Although i would say the type of people selected to mate also relies on how master organises his servants.
Fenoopy your theory is the exact opposite of truth. That’s Blacks which were sexually selected by male to male competition because they didn’t have to mastered their environments to get food. This is why Blacks are tall, muscular, have big genitals, etc… sexual selection.
On the other hand Whites & Asians needed to build tools, shelters, etc and predict the future to survive the cold winter, that’s why they have bigger brains than Blacks but less muscles, genitals and testosterone.
That’s also why Whites & Asians are more cooperative than Blacks, they were competiting against the environment to get ressources while Blacks were competiting against each other to get females.
Every time you speak I realize just how much smarter I am than you.
Retarded garbage. Where are the Arab and Arctic geniuses? They live in the most hostile environments of all.
What an idiot. Basic observations just fly completely over your head as you lack the intellectual capacity to look at the big picture.
The idea that Africa is a thriving and fertile land with unlimited food and the Negros were frolicking around naked in paradise is utter garbage too.
It’s cold environment that selected for high IQ, not hostile environment per se. That’s because humans evolved from African apes and our bodies had millions of years to evolve to the warmth. Our bodies are not adapted to the cold so we needed to adapt our behaviour which requires intelligence.
Of course coldness was not the only factor that caused high IQs to evolve, so arctics are not the smartest people, but ON AVERAGE, races that evolved in the cold are smarter than races who stayed in the ancestral warm environment
I’m really starting to think there is a genetic barrier which cannot be crossed between us. As successful and street smart you can be, your brain doesn’t seems to have the capacity for sciences. You said it yourself you suck at maths which indicate your abstract reasoning abilities to be very low. The reasons for this are found in your genome, we are not from the same genetic stock.
When you were commenting here as “Jimmy” I first thought you simply had difficulties with words and meanings (low VIQ and dyslexia) but I realize now it was something more profound. It make me sad for the future of Europe in which people like you and Afrosapiens are becoming more and more present.
Look at this “debate”, the white man is trying to explain things in a rational way to the agressive non-White who is only here to satisfy his ego: https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/grandsdebatssciences/la-science-moderne-est-nee-en-occident-vif-echange-entre-nidhal-guessoum-et-etienne-klein-au-debat-dieu-et-la-science-de-sciences-et-avenir_101635
He might as well have debated with an ape. Remind of some «debates» I had with some «people» here.
In fairness, i really don’t think Fenoopy is Jimmy. Totally different personality & writing style.
North Africans and Europeans fought for a millennia over who would enslave the other
Lol, I missed this one. Europeans shared your home continent like a cake and make your people their stooge. Incidentally, they also build your country giving you infrastructures growing your population in proportion never observe in your pathetic history.
Seriously PP ? This guy don’t even bother changing is writing style when switching between his sockpuppets. He even have some expressions proper to him he used with both Jimmy and Fenoopy. [redacted by pp, Sept 27, 2017] How could you have the chutzpah of saying the exact opposite of this ?
Btw why did you moderated me when I accused him of being Jimmy, Heinrich Himmler and Jacob Goldstein ?
I agree Jacob Goldstein was an obvious sock puppet. I’m shocked anyone actually believed he was an Israeli, but I suspected different commenter of being responsible for that hoax. Himmler I have no idea. Generally I moderate accusations of sock puppetry because they’re often wrong and because it just leads to the comment section being cluttered by people insulting each other which is why I just now moderated several comments by Fenoopy.
I don’t even know who those people are. Only username I’ve ever posted under is Fenoopy.
Arctic people are not as smart as White & East Asians because of their low population which didn’t allow a lot of genetic variation and mutations for high intelligence to appear.
They are still smarter than MENAs who evolved in warmer places.
It appears evolution of IQ differences among races boil down to 2 major factors :
– Cold winters : predictability of the environment which select for intelligence. It’s not about harshness of the environment as some idiot imply above. Tropical Africa it’s not an easy environment. It’s simply you can’t predict tropical diseases while you can predict winter if you have enough brain to see the pattern. You can also make clothes, shelters, sophisticated weapons to survive in a cold environment if you have enough spatial intelligence. All this doesn’t really matter in a warm environment.
– High population and low genetic isolation : more material for natural selection to work with. It explains why Bushmen & Pygmies are lower than Blacks, and why Arctic people & Northern Native Americans are lower than Whites & Asians.
Yes, Richard Lynn’s theory is that cold winters + big populations = high IQ
I suggested big population could be replaced by low geographic isolation, so that Ashkenazi Jewish IQ would be easier to explain
Civilisation may also had an effect on intelligence.
Meanwhile, it certainly had one on the behavior of the different populations, what pill call selection by the master.
Scandinavian in the 8th century :

Now :

This is just Nord-centrisim and is as bad as Afro-centrism. I scoff when I see it. You fail to mention that Mediterraneans are on average smarter than Nordics yet they originate in a temperate environment, not a cold one. Both Jews and Mediterraneans on average have higher IQs, with Italy being the highest IQ European country and 70% Mediterranean by blood, with the English being 80% Nordic by blood.
That said, Greece now has a 90 IQ, despite being one of the smartest civilizations at one point. Egypt’s is sitting at 80 IQ points.
None of you acknowledge the tremendous influence culture and education has on IQ, unless it benefits you.
You’ll bring the Negro all the way from sub-Saharan Africa and control for studies of Negros raised in White families, but for Islam, you immediately leap on the opportunity to claim these peoples from North Africa and the Middle East are simply born retarded. I don’t know why the Nordic love for the Negro is, but I sure want to find out.
The Negro in his natural environment is 66 IQ. Bring him to America and raise him in an adopted family and his IQ is only 5 points lower than the whites in the host family with a 95 IQ. If he is raised by black parents however, his IQ is 85 due to black culture of ignorance.
That’s a 29 point difference.
Now what would happen if you did that with the other races in the world?
Nobody will, since there is a love for studying Blacks as they were considered sub-Human by many. Nobody has any interest in finding the natural IQ of an adopted Mediterranean race, such as a Semitic or North African, without the influence of poverty or religion.
Fenoopy, no one is suggesting that the low IQs of Middle Easterners are entirely genetic. Both black Africans and Middle Easterners would score much higher if born in the First World, however in my opinion neither group would score as high as whites, though Middle Easterners would probably come a lot closer.
You fail to mention that Mediterraneans are on average smarter than Nordics
I see no strong evidence of this.
“When it comes to education, Christian Arabs are among the most successful groups in Israel. In 2011, 64% of the community’s high school graduates were eligible for Bagrut matriculation certificates, generally a requirement for entry to university, while among Jews that figure was 59%, and only 48% among Muslims. The CBS statistics also showed that Christian Arabs enjoyed relatively high incomes, and were generally more prosperous than their Muslim neighbors.”
To Truthteller:
“It’s simply you can’t predict tropical diseases while you can predict winter”
Much of SS Africa has substantial dry seasons (the humid jungles are a relatively small area of SSA/black Africa, most being savannah, sahel, and dry season or seasonally dry forest/forest savannah transition zone aka woodland savannah), which are regular and predictable (lasting about half the year in much of West Africa and certain other regions). Little grows (or little beneficial to humans) and food (e.g. grain) storage in granaries is essential, traditional and ancient among the farming tribes in those regions (esp. W. Africa). Preparation and seasonally specialized survival and food procurement methods were also required of hunter gatherers (Hunting increases dry seasons, as during winter in temperate zones), and water must be found, conserved and/or stored.
http://nile.riverawarenesskit.org/English/NRAK/RS_L3/html/climate_regions_africa_map.html
https://www.google.com/search?q=africa+climate+map&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiNvtPfgsfWAhUL6iYKHbj5A50Q_AUICigB&biw=1059&bih=682#imgrc=CeKiW6ax6D7kNM:
Most—though not all—rainforests/wetter forest regions are concentrated around the center of the continent (the “greater Congo” region), and make up a fairly small part of the continent (and of the subsaharan part as well). Some dry seasons exist in much of this area but are mostly shorter and/or less intense.
Difficult climatic conditions in Africa can be both predictable (as the dry seasons, which occur for a regular duration yearly) and less predictable (droughts), just as they can in colder or temperate Eurasia (winter), and less predictable in the case of more extreme cold periods (and regions). Whether (and how much) a less regular event such as drought can be at all mitigated by planning (and/or new skills, adaptations, etc) depends on its duration, geographic extent and how extreme it is—and they vary in these ways. The same can also be said of cold climatic episodes.
Also, to some (lesser) extent, (less regular) droughts might be prepared for (somewhere droughts have occurred enough be known of by natives—depending on the incidence of droughts in their range) by native tribes by developing/transmitting (in the collective body of survival practices) the knowledge of obtaining food in drier terrain, and water—or storing/conserving it for, as some Bushman tribes do, in groups or trails of buried ostrich eggshells.
Just as with the most extreme droughts in Africa, there were climate events in Eurasia (the worst of the cold episodes) that were too extreme to survive and could not be adapted to with intelligence. Large parts of Europe and North Asia were depopulated during the ice age that occurred from part of the paleolithic to mesolithic (the two main reffugia were Northern Iberia and the Balkans and Balkan peninsula, which recolonized much of Europe when temperatures dropped.
Regarding disease:
Disease, in Africa can and has been traditionally somewhat mitigated by responses requiring intelligence and preparation (in addition to the genetic adaptations). And in Africa, measures can and were be taken to reduce the number of those infected with malaria (and other infections), including: shielding babies from mosquitoes (sometimes traditionally using forms of netting), and as also occurred in Africa; the avoidance of certain more malarial mosquito-prone land types (which often tended to be near certain waterways) in choosing settlement sites (as well as immediate environments prone/most prone to other diseases such as hookworm) and other forms of “vector control”; as well as herbal remedies for malaria (and other infectious diseases), and traditional ways of repelling insects, which have been in use for thousands of years (Wilcox and Bodecker, 2004). the intensity of diseases can and often does vary seasonally, and, as mentioned, by weather and terrain type, allowing an element of predictability. Primitive methods of inoculation have been traditionally practiced by many tribes in Africa against diseases including smallpox.
“Traditional herbal medicines for malaria”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC527695/
“Traditional medicines have been used to treat malaria for thousands of years and are the source of the two main groups (artemisinin and quinine derivatives) of modern antimalarial drugs. With the problems of increasing levels of drug resistance and difficulties in poor areas of being able to afford and access effective antimalarial drugs, traditional medicines could be an important and sustainable source of treatment.
The Research Initiative on Traditional Antimalarial Methods (RITAM) was founded in 1999 with the aim of furthering research on traditional medicines for malaria.1 The initiative now has in excess of 200 members from over 30 countries. It has conducted systematic literature reviews and prepared guidelines aiming to standardise and improve the quality of ethnobotanical, pharmacological, and clinical studies on herbal antimalarials and on plant based methods of insect repellence and vector control. We review some of this work and outline what can be learnt from the developing countries on the management and control of malaria.””
and
“Medicinal plants used in malaria treatment by Prometra herbalists in Uganda.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24928824
Jews are not representative of all mediterranean populations. it’s like to say
parsees are smarter than italians.
”Parsees/indians”
It’s more Berber supremacists or Berberocentrists who are obsessed with Blacks. It betrays a stong inferiority complex in my opinion. They always need to compare with Blacks, which it’s like comparing with the “bottom of the class”.
For the Mediterraneans vs Nordics question. It seems Nordics countries are in average slightly smarter, with Italy being an exception. Overall there are no big IQ differences among Europeans.
I try not to focuse too much on historical achievements to judge from the abilities of different populations because it depends a lot on geography and other external factors. I prefer factual evidences like IQ scores, even if they are still far from perfects, and direct observations from the real world.
Iberians are genetically closer to Anglos than to Moroccans. But Berberocentrists still claim every mediterranean civilisation to be their. They are no different from Afrocentrists.
Jm8, what’s your view on racial differences in behavior/intelligence ?
In the Netherlands Moroccans have an average IQ of 81. Indonesians are at 94.
Both groups are muslims.
Please explain to me why Nordics, whom currently at this point in history (a fraction of the history of civilization) live in what is the closest to paradise on Earth that we as humans have ever come to, with an entirely homogeneous society in both race and ideology peak at an average IQ of 100 yet are considered superior to the other Caucasian races of the Earth.
Italians clock in at 102.
The Irish clock in at 90 and live in favorable conditions with favorable ideology. The shit hole called Iraq is an absolute mess, filled with poverty, misery, terrorists and Islam, yet they clock in at 87. Surely an Iraqi raised in a 1st world family as an adopted child would score higher than both the Irish and Nordics?
So many Iraqi in 1st world countries are doctors, scientists, etc. These people created one of the first civilizations of the world on their own.
I simply don’t understand where this idea that the Nordics are the smartest Caucasians came from, especially as they have only been successful for a tiny fraction of human history while peoples such as the Egyptians, the Arabs, the Chinese etc have been civilized for millennia.
What we are seeing here is the dark age of Islam, like the dark ages of China, stiffing IQ and causing great retardation in the population.
North Africans were conquering, enslaving and educating Nordic people for almost a million years, yet are considered borderline retarded due to their failures in the 150 years since the collapse of the Ottoman empire? What about the multiple millennia before that in which North Africans owned the most prominent Caucasian civilizations on Earth?
In my opinion all Caucasian types are more or less equal and the differences in IQ we see are due to environment, education and ideology. I think all Nordic supremacy comes from Nordic pseudo-intellectual thought. It’s always a Nordic advocating the idea of Nordic intellectual supremacy over other Caucasians, almost without exception.
This is perfectly natural. Everyone gets carried away and stands up for their own tribal interests sometimes, but it isn’t reality.
The idea of good and evil being objective and Nordics being objectively good is also one of the most irritatingly nonsensical ideas I hear so often. Belief in a good and evil scale is almost infantile. The intrinsic morality argument is so terrible, given the track record of Europe. So ridiculous it makes my jaw drop every time.
“It’s more Berber supremacists or Berberocentrists who are obsessed with Blacks. It betrays a stong inferiority complex in my opinion. They always need to compare with Blacks, which it’s like comparing with the “bottom of the class”. ”
You fail to mention Italians were considered ‘Blacks’ in America for almost a century because of their darker skin, hairiness, extroversion and tendency to anger quickly.
Turns out Italians are smarter than Nordics in reality.
It’s fucking annoying being called Negro or compared to them in any way. Fucking annoying.
It would probably be worse to be called a Gypsy, but nobody does that.
“In the Netherlands Moroccans have an average IQ of 81.”
Moroccans in the Netherlands are literally Chavs, they live in ghettos and are entirely uneducated. Here in the UK, we also have Chavs.
They’re English.
Moroccans in the Netherlands are poor as dirt 1st generation immigrants. Algerians in France are poor as dirt 1st generation immigrants. You might as well be exclusively measuring the IQ of Chavs.
Middle class Algerians like me don’t behave like Chavs because we’re in a completely different social class. Social class is the primary cause of their behavior. They are quite simply Chavs that happen to be Moroccan. They have no land, no wealth, they were born into absolutely nothing.
You are so dishonest it’s becoming embarrassing.
I’m not even a Nordic, so a Nordic supremacist ? You are the only supremacist here, you are literally claiming that North Africans are smarter than the people who built their countries ? Seriously ?
Any Italian or French city is better looking than Alger or Oran.
How could you possibly compare what Whites built whether in America or Europe with what your ancestors built in North Africa and especially in the Maghreb ? What noteworthy have you built in the Maghreb except a few palaces & temples ?
First human civilisations appeared in the Middle East then what ? They had the perfect climate & environment to develop and didn’t have any competition back then.
When Europeans became civilised they easily surpassed anything Middle Easterners & South Asians accomplished before. And they remain unsurpassed.
You are comparing british undersclass with what’s make up the vast majority of North African youth ?
Algerians poor as dirt 1st generation immigrants ? Seriously ? It’s more like 2nd or 3rd generation and they have enough money to buy build villas and live like pashas in their home countries.
Just stop victimizing yourself. It’s like talking to a berber version of Afrosapiens who will do anything to justify the failure of his people.
North Africans were conquering, enslaving and educating Nordic people for almost a million years, yet are considered borderline retarded due to their failures in the 150 years since the collapse of the Ottoman empire?
I hope this one was really a joke.
I agree schooling/education, malnutrition and tropical diseases affect IQ scores.
The thing is you talk about Iraqis IQ like they were testing uneducated children whose homes were destroy in bombings. These tests were given to university students.
All the greatest scientists are black haired. I’m proud to be Mediterranean. Absurd that you claim Kabyle are stupid when their haplogroup is E1b1b1b (47.36%).
“Tested Einsteins from Germany belong to E1b1b1b2”
“Adolf Hitler, dictator of Germany during 1933–1945, likely belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E-M35 (“E1b1b1″)”
“Napoleon Bonaparte belonged to Y haplogroup E1b1b1”
I guess the French will keep claiming people like Zinedine Zidane, Karim Benzema, Marcel Mouloudji, Malik Zidi, Dany Boon, Jacques Villeret, Daniel Prévost, Marie-José Nat, Isabelle Adjani, Alain Bashung and Marion Cotillard as their own.
The quantity of great people our genes produce is astounding for such a small group. Especially Kabyle Jews, whom all belong to E1b1b1.
also nords like the irish and slavs are fucking retarded, irish are literally dumber than turks, but you defend them
unless you mean specifically scandinavians? then you should call them so
Most of theses celebrities are only part Kabyles. It’s like saying Alexander Dumas was black because he had 1/4 of negroid blood.
You are applying the one-drop rule to your people.
You are also denying that they were able to hit these level of success because they were surrounded by Whites in a white country.
I agree with you most scientifics were black-haired but… in Northern European countries ! The ethnic background of the country is also very important. I doubt Algeria could have sustained an Einstein or a Von Neumann. They would have emigrated to other countries.
Also, E1b1b1 is not specific to Kabyles, you fail to mention it originated from the Horn of Africa.
Map from a 2012 study.
Southern Slavs are dumbest than Northern ones.
Both Irish & Slavs are smarter than Turks.
“I doubt Algeria could have sustained an Einstein or a Von Neumann. They would have emigrated to other countries.”
I’m being over-indulgent, they simply would have never existed in the first place.
“Most of theses celebrities are only part Kabyles. It’s like saying Alexander Dumas was black because he had 1/4 of negroid blood.”
Kabyle are completely indistinguishable in appearance from Europeans. I could effortlessly pass as French or Italian or Spanish or Greek. All those ethnicities look swarthier than me. E1B1B1 is passed down from the father’s side, so as long as their father is Kabyle, they will inherit the genetics.
A Y chromosome DNA test (Y-DNA test) is a genealogical DNA test which is used to explore a man’s patrilineal or direct father’s-line ancestry. The Y chromosome, like the patrilineal surname, passes down virtually unchanged from father to son.
The most common hair colors are black and ginger. Blondes are about 15%. I am part ginger myself and my father was 100% ginger but his hair turned black in his 20’s. I don’t know how that happened. My cousins are 100% blonde.
“You are also denying that they were able to hit these level of success because they were surrounded by Whites in a white country. ”
I don’t deny it, you are right. Algeria is a bad place.
“I doubt Algeria could have sustained an Einstein or a Von Neumann. They would have emigrated to other countries.”
All Kabyle intellectuals immigrate. I don’t even live in Kabylia myself.
“Also, E1b1b1 is not specific to Kabyles, you fail to mention it originated from the Horn of Africa.”
It isn’t specific to Kabyles, but E1B1B1 is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup among them and is dominated by North Africans, especially by North African Jews. It may have originated from the Horn of Africa, but that does not mean it belongs to the Horn of Africa. Humans originated from Africa, but we are not African.
Ultimately, what this means is that as Y-DNA is virtually unchanged from father to son, all great people with E1B1B1 have had a patrilineal line of North Africans that is unbroken to this day. Infact, E1B1B1 is completely dominated by Berbers and Jews; mostly Berber-Jews.
E1b1b1 is not specific to Kabyles. It’s widespread in the Horn of Africa, North Africa, the Near East and the Balkans. A lot of Jews & Southern Europeans have it too.
It’s even more reasonable to claim Alexander Dumas was black than Hitler, Napoleon and Marion Cotillard being Kabyles.
Some Kabyles looks perfectly Europeans then what ? A lot of them don’t act like regular white people. It’s like saying Jews are whites because some of them look whites.
That said my first point was about North Africans being a different kind as most Europeans, whether in behavior or intelligence. Kabyles are not representative of most North Africans, at least we can agree on this.
But they still hardly looks like regular Europeans, even from Southern Italy or the Balkans :
Don’t look like regular Europeans?
Let’s play a game then. Which one of these is the European? Which is the Kabyle?
https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e35/11925682_1497778130514615_1554075609_n.jpg?ig_cache_key=MTA2ODg0OTk4OTE1OTMyNjEwOA%3D%3D.2
“It’s even more reasonable to claim Alexander Dumas was black than Hitler, Napoleon and Marion Cotillard being Kabyles.”
Of course they’re unlikely to be Kabyle, that’s a ridiculous claim. E1B1B1 is however, North African-Jewish. Uniquely so. These great people are from a North African lineage on their fathers side, not from Europe.
“A lot of Jews & Southern Europeans have it too.”
This is because they’re mixed with North Africans due to their geological proximity. This is the most rational explanation. As for Jews having it, a vast portion of Jews are North African. They are called Sephardi Jews.
As for the coloration of Kabyles, there are two areas within Kabylia. Grande Kabylie and Petite Kabyle. Grande Kabylies are paler than Irish people and live in the highland mountains, people from Petite Kabyle are like Italians or Jews in color. Infact, many are Jews.
“A lot of them don’t act like regular white people.”
You can’t infer a persons behavior from their genetics. A negro raised in a white family is only 5 points below the host family in IQ. This is science. He also behaves in a perfectly civilized manner.
Culture and upbringing has a huge effect on the behavior of a human and contributes massively to his intelligence.
Negro are 66 IQ in their natural habitat, 85 IQ with the black culture of ignorance, but 95 IQ with white culture.
White culture is currently the most superior culture on this planet Earth, I freely admit. I benefit from it myself, having been raised in it. However, as science has shown – social class and culture has a huge impact.
If a Negro in his natural habitat with 66 IQ can achieve 95 IQ (5 points below the host family) when adopted by a white family, a Berber sand nomad with an 83 IQ in his camel jockey natural habitat can surely achieve a far better result than the Negro if adopted.
Or do you think the Berber sand nomad will be equal or less than the Negro despite being almost 20 points above him in intellect in the wild?
Lol, I guess the more white-lookings are Kabyles and the darker ones Italians ?
It’s like these models you showed me first, you are cherry-picking.
Most of the models in South Asia and the MENA are very caucasoid looking fair-skinned women.
But they are far for being representative of the whole population like these random Kabyles at demonstrations :
Or these ones :
And actually, I would never mistake the Italians in the first picture for North Africans. Despite their tanned skin they still look more European than some white-skinned Kabyles.
At worst the one on the right looks hispanic.
It’s not only the skin color but the facial features that matter.
I’m quite surprised, this is the first time in my life I’ve ever seen Kabyle that dark, ever. Maybe the demonstration is in ‘Petite Kabyle’, not ‘Grande Kabyle’.
That picture is closer to my experience. However, don’t get the wrong idea. I like tan skin and I like Jews.
Look at the massive difference in coloration. It’s as I said: “Grande Kabylies are paler than Irish people and live in the highland mountains, people from Petite Kabyle are like Italians or Jews in color.”
Regardless, I’m quite satisfied with the position of my family in the upper-middle class and have no insecurities about my IQ. I’m in the top 0.1%. My family are in the top 1% and so are my tribe. From my perspective, ‘white’ people are stupid. I feel many Jews feel the same way, but people that consider themselves ‘white’ will continue to berate their betters.
As if they have the position or intellect to judge.
As for the rest of North Africans and their intellect? It’s as I said in my previous response to: “A lot of them don’t act like regular white people.”
They could well be smarter than Europeans if adopted. Arabs too. The Negro can achieve 5 points lower than the white if adopted. The Negro is the most stupid race of man. It’s the culture that is the cancer, proven by blacks gaining 10 IQ points if raised by white families instead of with the black culture of ignorance.
Not to mention: “Jews were by definition non-Aryan, because of their Semitic origins. Outside of Europe in North Africa, according to Alfred Rosenberg’s racial theories (The Myth of the Twentieth Century), some of the Berbers, particularly the Kabyles, were to be classified as Aryans.
The Nazis portrayed Swedes, the Afrikaaners who are white European descendants of Dutch-speaking Boers in South Africa and higher-degree Northern/Western Europeans of South America (mainly from Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina) as ideal “Aryans” along with the German-speaking peoples of Greater Germany and Switzerland (the country was neutral during the war).”
That really throws a wrench in your philosophy. My parents are probably whiter than you.
Sure, Negroids are at 95, Whites are at 100 and Arabs are at 110 (Qataris are still stuck at 78 despite all the money they have but there is probably a cultural explanation or islam which prevent them to perform well at block design tests or raven matrices)
And of course Jews at 115 and Kabyles at 130.
So, let’s recapitulate the racial hierarchy:
1) Kabyles – 130
2) Jews -115
3) Arabs -110
4) East Asians – 105
5) Whites – 100 (one of the dumbest race only at 5 points from Blacks)
6) Blacks – 95
Why all these differences ? Because Kabyles, Jews and Arabs had plenty of food, that’s why they are better looking, stronger, taller and smarter than Whites who were freezing in the cold.
Blacks are the dumbest, ugliest, weakest and smallest because they were starving in the savannah.
Also note that Whites are not nicer than MENAs and Jews. This is why they let these latter lecturing them while their fat ass are being fed in white countries, by white people, using white technology (though this last point can be discuss given the black-haired nature of most scientists and their belonging to the e1b1b1 haplogroup).
Sorry, I should have said Europeans and not “Whites” since Kabyles are whiter than Whites.
Some ideal Aryans :
I think Arabs are at least smarter than Negros. As I said before, I think all Caucasians are borderline the same IQ naturally. Asians tend (?) to be smarter than Caucasians on average, but again I think it’s because of the culture of study they have. Caucasians don’t have that same culture.
People don’t put enough weight on how much culture matters.
As for you, you just don’t particularly like non-Germanic people, probably due to bad experience.
As to how much genes matter among Caucasians, I’d say it comes down to the individual. Many geniuses are born from stupid parents.
My point is only to show your contradictions and how you always adapt the reality to the situation you are in. When your lies look too big you soften them.
The only constant thing in your comments is how you are trying to show your people in a good light.
For the rest, it only depends on the situation you are in.
One day Arabs are savage schizo animals, one day they are smarter than Whites, another day it’s Whites, Asians and North Africans who are the smartest because they had plenty of food while Arctic people and Arabs who evolved in the desert are necessarily dumber.
One day “the Negro” is a subhuman, the other day he potentially have an IQ of 95.
One day Irish & Slavs are “fucking retarded”, the other day all Caucasians have roughly the same average IQ.
I’m not the supremacist here. You say I don’t like non-germanic people, I judge individuals first. But it doesn’t prevent me to be more wary when I’m dealing with a Moroccan than with a German.
Blond-haired and blue-eyed persons have shown me they are more trustworthy than the rest. They also show this at a global level.
Even you are capable of understanding this as you said you would restrain your cheater nature if living in a scandinavian country.
“Blond-haired and blue-eyed persons have shown me they are more trustworthy than the rest. They also show this at a global level.”
Of course everyone will understand I’m not talking about blond-haired and blue-eyed Albanians.
Of course they’re more trustworthy, but I believe this is in their culture, you believe it’s in their genetics.
By blonde and blue eyed you mean Germanics and Scandinavians. The Slavs, Irish and Mediterraneans don’t behave in the same way. The French are especially cutthroat, untrustworthy and dishonorable and are known for it.
The only thing I believe is a fact is that all Caucasians have the same genetic potential for intelligence. When it comes to facts, it cannot be denied that Berbers have 20 point lower IQs to Germanics & Scandinavians in their home countries.
Most of the other debate I’ve done with you is nonsense and just for entertainment because I enjoy it. I don’t mean that in a condescending manner. I enjoy arguing the unpopular opinion as a rule.
It’s both genetic & culture working together like every human personality traits. It’s foolish to claim it’s only one of both.
I think you are being very unfair to french people. Most true French are trustworthy and good people.
But if you are talking of southeastern French then I 100% agree with you. But they aren’t true French, they are a melting-pot of French, Italians, Corsicans, North Africans/Arabs (from the previous invasions and now from the current one), and even Gypsies.
They are the typical mediterranean people you love so much.
They are nothing like people from the northern parts of France.
An Algerian fresh off the boat is at home in Marseille, Nice and every provençal city. Even small villages are invaded.
People who never lived there can’t understand. It’s not France.
Emmanuel Macron is blonde/brown haired and blue eyed, a banker, a globalist, and a textbook psychopath. He’s also the president of France.
He received the majority French vote.
My experience with French people is very different from yours.
In general (?) Germanics and Scandinavians tend to be very moral, but that’s something to be judged on an individual basis. The lower-class English or German Chavs are immoral and behave the same way as Moroccans or Algerians fresh off the boat.
That said, Scandinavia and Japan are the only truly moral (?) group of countries in my opinion.
Germany, England, France, China, America etc are Capitalist shark-tanks. I live in England, and though I am relatively moral by nature, I’m cutthroat because my environment (middle class corporatism) demands it. Show weakness even for a moment and folk like Macron, the blue-eyed people you love so much, will tear you and your career apart.
Not through violence, of course, but other means. Like a shrewd Jew.
Merkel is German but also an intentional traitor to her people.
With people like this running your ‘moral’ countries I have no hope for humanity.
Scandinavia and Japan seem to be holding out well, but leftism has taken root and soon Scandinavia will turn out like Sweden.
Is this moral behavior?
It’s just lying in my opinion. The truth matters most importantly. Behavior like this is a clear sign of subversion and will lead to the eventual decay of their society into a shark-tank like the rest of the west.
Japan will probably be the last moral, homogeneous society on earth.
I think I will move there or China in order to purchase my first property.
It’s (((western elites))) who are sociopathic, not the people, they are simply brainwashed. When they vote Macron they really think they are doing something good.
In the rest of the world everyone is corrupted from the bottom to the top of society.
I disagree, I think most humans care naturally for their peers and the eventual transition to cutthroat behavior is a product of the environment and cruel reality. As a general rule, the poorer a population the more immoral they become, and as a general rule, the lower the IQ of a population the poorer they are.
Arabs in the UAE enjoy a crime rate 10 times lower than many Nordic countries. They’re wealthy and don’t have to struggle to survive as 2/3 of the world does every day.
But they evolved in the harsh desert of Arabia which selected for ruthless and unscrupulous personality types.
Just look how the rich family of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE treats their servants.
You should look it up, these people are disgusting.
You should also compare how poor North Africans (who are not so poor btw) act compared to poor Whites. It’s not only a social class thing, it’s racial.
”You should also compare how poor North Africans (who are not so poor btw) act compared to poor Whites. It’s not only a social class thing, it’s racial.”
I think have evolved too long in ”civilized”/ urban places, they fit totally with urban vibes: materialism, hedonism, competition for high status. Remember the first known civilizations appeared there.
Fenoopy create a Anthroscape fillial!
Fenoopy,
“Natural selection is from other humans, not the environment”
Seriously?
Also, whites are taller than blacks. I don’t know where the idea that blacks were virile monsters with great heights and gigantic penises came from. America, maybe (even though the average African-American is shorter than the average White-American).
Worlds strongest men are… white.
Fenoopy, U.S. whites are only half an inch taller than U.S. blacks, but U.S. blacks are more muscular, as evidenced by their overrepresentation among elite body builders.
The World Health Organization reported that African countries are in panic mode because of breaking condoms, and jumbo sized condoms had to be produced specifically for black Africa, despite malnutrition decreasing the body size of Africans
Nordics are the tallest, indeed.
Body building is cultural. Strong white men look fat, strong black men look like they’re rippling with muscle.
Being a strongman really comes down to genetics, which is why it’s dominated entirely by white people.
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-04/26/14/enhanced/webdr04/original-grid-image-30048-1461694999-2.jpg?crop=426:639;0,10&downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto
One looks stronger, the other is actually stronger.
“Body building is cultural. Strong white men look fat, strong black men look like they’re rippling with muscle.”
Whites (especially Northern Europeans) tend to have more subcutaneous fat (a cold adaptation which acts as insulation) on top of their muscles, which can make their muscles/mass/bulk look less defined when they’re just as muscular, and thus sometimes muscle bulk can appear “fat” or a bit less differentiated.
“Although a couple of our commenters have been citing a lot of the accomplishments of black Africa, Dr. Michael H. Hart paints a very different picture in his book Understanding Human History. Hart’s book was published in 2007 so some of his claims may no longer be accepted as the archeological record has since become more complete and politically correct.”
So this is basically how you would hand-wave archaeology since you cvan’t take the time to analyze the legitimacy of findings yourself.
But if we were to argue on bias and background, Hart had no history background and was a self-asserted racial seperatist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_H._Hart
So forgive me if I’ll accept the books and papers I’ve read on African history versus Hart.
“By 600 BC iron smelting occurred in Nigeria. Hart writes “It seems probable that knowledge of iron work had been introduced from the North or brought from the eastern Sudan.” Introduced or brought in by Caucasoids?”
Unlikely as Berbers rarely penetrated that far, more likely Nilosaharans.
“Why was the secluded zone of black Africa so far behind virtually everyone else on Earth? In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond argues that black Africa was simply cut off from the rest of the World, and thus didn’t have access to advances in knowledge, however Hart rejects this explanation because Native Americans were even more geographically isolated than black Africans, yet their societies were so much more advanced.”
MESOAMERICANS, not “Native Americans. The latter had low population desnity like Africans and mainly had burial mounds and lived in Villages.
“Instead Hart favours the cold winters explanation. Races who left Africa tens of thousands of years ago, and got at least some exposure to the ice age, evolved higher intelligence to survive the cold, and once the ice age ended, this allowed them to create advanced culture and technologies.”
RR already talked about this, but for the sake of argument lets move on to his claims specifically on Africa.
“While the exposed zone was not poor, and benefitted from written languages brought by Muslim slave traders, Hart feels the indigenous peoples still failed to make a single contribution to World civilization.”
Dhar Tichitt, as Jm8 elaborated on, Ife, Nri (igbo), Benin, Nok, and various congolese states.
“But it is the vast secluded zone that bears the brunt of Hart’s poison pen. Described as a primitive and backward region until as recently as the 19th century, Hart notes that there were:
-no wheeled vehicles, nor even the potter’s wheel”
See John Baker on how central Africans had a alternative method that produced impressive pottery, compared to Hart he was far more investigative.
“– no method of even joining together pieces of wood”
Let made large Architecture as I outlined through mudbricks and wood.
“-no beasts of burden or draft animals (though cattle was raised)”
This can be explain two ways, one that draft animals like horses or cattle are general diffused from a common source.
Even Mesoamericans lacked them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerica#General_characteristics
“-not a single written language in the entire region, and thus no law codes, no philosophical works, no literature or even oral epic-poetry”
There was certain forms of law by the Yoruba and Igbo, for instance Nsibidi, a proto-script of SE Nigeria, was used specifically for Legal cases.
See comments on the Yoruba.
“There are various other indications of the fact that the people are not deficient in intellect. One of these we find in their government and laws. The highest excellence of the best governments among white people consists in constitutional checks or limits to prevent abuses of power. Strange as it may seem, the Central Africans had studied out this balance of power and reduced it to practice, long before our fathers settled in America – before the barons of England has extorted the great charter from King John. The pure and correct theism which rises far above the superstitions of the people is another proof of their mental soundness. Even their idolatry, while it is substantially the same as that of Assyria, Greece, and Rome, has not been loaded with such puerile fancies and debasing dogmas as were common at Corinth and Athens.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=3LtAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR11&lpg=PR11&dq=Yoruba+negroes+sense+of+law&source=bl&ots=BUrQPBoNdp&sig=9aCnl_BD_TpkZDePCAQP5fWBAio&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhnpuhhr_WAhUT6mMKHf5zDDAQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=laws&f=false
This coincides with the common practice of Kings in West Africa often being moderated by a council, and in decentralized Igbo communities they had that framework rather than chiefs.
As for epic poetry/stories, See Sunjata, Ikenga,and the Yoruba princes.
“-no coins or money”
Again, a diffused concept of currency.
“– no math beyond simple arithmetic”
See here, http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/special/eglash.african.fractals.html
“-no cities beyond small towns, no temples, large monuments nor domes, arches, schools, hospitals, libraries nor paved roads.”
Ife, Dhar Tichitt, Nri, Abomey, etc. Ife actually did have potsherd roads. None of these has he elaborated on being specific requirements and traits of independent civilizations.
” Hart credits the ruins of Great Zimbabwe as the most notable construction in the secluded zone, but feels it was nothing compared to the Machu Picchu in South America, or Cambodia’s Angkor Wat complex, or Mesoamerica’s large cities and religious buildings. Hart notes that the giant statues on the tiny isolated Polynesian Easter Island were more impressive than anything found in the entire, secluded zone of black Africa.”
“More impressive” yet that doesn’t place it in absolute terms of development or capabilities.
And if he only knew of Zimbabwe, and doesn’t speak of Igbo Ukwu, Nok, or Ife then it speaks for itself how limited his knowledge is worth.
oprah is on 60 Minutes tonight. something for peepee to fap to. you can watch it online peepee. she’s the interviewer not the interviewee. the subject is, “why doesn’t everyone love trump as much as i do? he’s so sexy.”
I know, I’m recording it,
Some of his claims are no longer accepted because the archaeological and historical record has become more complete, but others were not accepted in 2007 (or were heavily doubted) either and have been undermined or unsupported by evidence prior to that.
Michael Hart is not a historian or an archaeologist, or anthropologist, etc (or has any similar such background, let alone a scholar of Africa) (apparently he is astrophysicist). And his statements on Africa (and perhaps his purpose in writing on the subject at all) seems likely to be primarily ideological and politically motivated more than anything else, since he had no backgroud in it or in any related field). Much of his activity outside of Physics has been in association with white separatist and other racialist and far right organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_H._Hart
“no literature or even oral epic-poetry”
The second is very untrue and such was known before 2007.
Epic poetry is found all over West Africa as much as Central Africa (especially, but not only among the Mande and other peoples of the Mali region, the Senegambia and Guinea, who have casted hereditary bards—a custom that originated with them and has been adopted by some neighboring tribes. The animistic hunters’ societies of many tribes, more primitive and believed to be extremely ancient and even older than the bardic tradition, have a specialized body/tradition of epic songs as well). Long form epics and oral history/mythology are also found among many of the non-Mande peoples of the Western savannah Burkina, N. Ghana, and further south in the forest region: (just to give a few examples) among the Ashanti/Akan, Ewe, Yoruba (who have a genre of oral literature called Oriki, as well as a body of sacred poems memorized by their Ifa priests). The Fang, Beti and the Bamileke (and Bamoum, Bafut, etc.) and neighboring tribes in Central Africa Cameroon and Gabon are also especially noted for their epics (traditionally played to a stringed instrument called the Mvet—especially associated with epics and battle songs), as are the peoples of the Lakes region of East Central Africa (The Baganda, Haya, BaRwanda, etc), and the peoples of parts of Congo (e.g. the Lianja epic of the Mongo people)
Most of West Africa was not in contact with caucasoids when its most notable civilizations formed (as I explained in the comments of the last post). Iron working in Nigeria predates 600 bc as well as ironworking in the lands of the nearest caucasoids (who thus are unlikely to have introduced it).
One written language was created in s Africa (Nsibidi), which show no sign of foreign origin (it is very unlike any other script and all surrounding regions had no scripts). Anyway independently invented scripts are rare historically (and there is no evidence of them in Europe).
“Native Americans were even more geographically isolated than black Africans, yet their societies were so much more advanced.”
This is generally not true (in many cases the reverse is true esp. of North America and South America outside the Andes). The argument could be made only of Native Americans in parts of Central America and (as mentioned) much of the Andes (in some respects it might be true in those cases, and in others not).
They claim about a lack of seafaring though (in a sense—that is relative to Europe and Asia), is largely true (the same could be said of Native American cultures, even the most advanced ones, and this likely has a lot to do with geography (Africa has few islands archipelagoes or island groups near the mainland of the kind where seafaring cultures usually evolve: like the Greeks in the Agean, Norse in N. Europe, or Polynesians and their seafaring Southeast Asian ancestors in SE Asia. The Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs/Toltecs did no real sea faring either—or really none at all for the most part. The Amerindians that traveled most by sea were the relatively non-advanced Carib and Arawak Indians (who settled the Caribbean from Venezuela) and, to a lesser extent, the Indians of the North American NorthWest Coast.
As for what did exist:
In Africa seafaring (among traditional non-influenced subsaharans) was not nonexistent and substantial seafaring boats made of joined wood—which did exist (about the same size and the extremely large canoes used by the US Indians of British Colombia) for deep sea fishing, travel to nearby islands, and trading along the coast (though not really ships) were used by peoples along the West Africa Coast (before European contact—some of the first Europeans described them when they arrived) by coastal tribes like the Wolof and Lebu of Senegal, the Fanta, Ga and Ashanti in Ghana, and some of the Bantu tribes of coastal Central Africa like the Cameroonian Douala. Ethnolinguist Roger Blench has proposed that early proto Bantu in Central Africa (or branches thereof) may have spread along the Gabon-Congo Coast (the Bantu ancestors of the Bantu Bubi tribe of the Fernando Po/Bioko islands colonized them from the mainland millennia before Europeans arrived. There is also some (albeit tentative) evidence that fisherman and traders of certain West Africa cultures (Parts of South east Nigeria) occasionally reached as far as Gabon and the Northern Congo. In the case of Cape Verde, it’s earliest confirmed (and most likely) discovery (I believe) is by the Portuguese. I have read claims that Lebu fisherman might have rarely visited it before, but I have found not confirmation of that so it may well not be true.
Baganda craft:
https://www.google.com/search?q=baganda+boats&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF8OHPkr_WAhUlL8AKHXXpCkkQ_AUICigB&biw=1438&bih=750#imgrc=DdS_WDmKMDa6MM:
Large boats were built by the African groups that lived along large navigable rivers (like the Niger) and lakes (like lake Chad and the lakes of Uganda/Rwanda/Burundi.
Along the Malian Middle Niger long canoe-like cargo barges (make of pieces of wood sewn together) are traditional and are used by various tribes that have lived by fishing and/or riverine trade (the Bozo, Somono, Songhai)—these (the larger ones that is) likely go back at least to the times of Djenne Jeno and (the older) Dia when specialized groups of river traders began to exists (specialized fisherman, or course go back much further, but their boat may have tended smaller since they were not cargo bearing—although the ancestors of the Songhai with their traditions of hunting hippos and crocodiles by boat may have had larger craft earlier. The Ugandan Baganda kingdom had a fleet of boats made for joined wood, as did certain tribes of the S.E Nigerian Niger (some of which had a small deck/cabin at the front—also of joined wood)—though of course these were of course much smaller than ocean-going ships)
Joining pieces of wood was widely necessary an common in may regions, (aside for in the types of boats mentioned) as the common styles of house buildings usually required a wooden/timber frame (sometimes underlying adobe of mud/mud brick as in Central/Souther Nigeria and S. Ghana, or in structures largely made of wood or bamboo as in Central Africa.
Some of the structure-types common in the Cameroon grasslands (Bamileke, Bamoum, Bandjoun tribes, etc) of West Central Africa were shown by Phil in the comments of the last post. I linked a collection of images form Ashanti previously (under the last topic).
Some more architecture from that region—down past the first few ancient Nubian images at the top of the forum thread):
http://historum.com/middle-eastern-african-history/58840-diversity-early-african-architecture-ruins-thread-16.html
The agriculture claim is untrue, and was in doubt for a while before his book (except for the agriculture of N, E, Africa, much of the horn, and the Maghreb which did come from the Middle East through Egypt), and Most SS African agriculture does not come from Egypt or the Magreb and is a distinct tradition.
Jm8 are you black
Who isnt black here? We are all desce ded from mother africa!!! AYIYIHIYIYIYI.
Jm8, I updated the article include your excellent rebuttal.
papuans are more advanced than asians. sad!



etc.
etc.
etc.
[redacted by pp, sept 25, 2017]
Well it depends how you classify and sub-divide the races, but this tree has arctics and East Asians as the two most branched races:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3fa679efe1c7f0338e1731459f7727d5
The most objective classification of races was a PC analysis done by Jensen, which found 6 monophyletic races.
Even though most of these trees are arbitrary, IQ and brain size would correlate with branching under any tree you could find, even though they were not constructed with those variables in mind, which shows you the robustness of my theory, even though the precise ranking would change.
jensen didn’t do a genetic analysis peepee.
jensen was a psychologist.
He did not obtain the genetic data himself, but he did a PC analysis on it. I blogged about it here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/07/23/how-many-races-are-there/
so now jensen knows more than spencer wells?
gimme a break peepee.
peepee has a tendency to form crushes.
she has a crush on jensen.
All Jensen did was applied PC analysis to a bunch of genetic data to reduce dozens of human population into just 6 races. Nothing Spencer Wells said contracts Jensen’s conclusions.
Martin luther Kang. I tend to think whites are brainwashed onto worshipping him more than even blacks. Blacks are unbrainwashable in my opinion. Notice the way being brainwadhable is a prerequisite to higher civilization. Is it because civilisation is built on brainwashing? Every civ has a druid caste. Except the east asians i think.
yes pill. it’s obvious that the (((media))) is motivated by (((tribalism))) and not just class…PACE chomsky.
but mass media and finance are (((their))) strongest positions in the war/front/battlefields.
if you got a job with koch industries straight out of UCB, i think you’d be surprised how much the (((media))) is NOT a representation of the real world.
consumerism
consumerism
consumerism
Money is God.
it takes great sophistication to be simple.
the brits are right about that…wrong about everything else.
but it takes great sophistication to tell the difference between the simple…
and the simple.
—dean moriarty…
hahaha….
in america…when the sun goes down…
and all that road going…
it’s a kick.
do the boring golf course.
it’s the opposite of boring.
sad!
i can’t find a vid. here’re the pics.


https://golfnow.ugc.bazaarvoice.com/0079/215065/photo.jpg?client=golfnow
http://d2tbfnbweol72x.cloudfront.net/97009/files/2014/03/slider1.jpg?v=1.0
as i’ve said (((they))) achieve the most in those fields which are most dependent on selling. it could be the power of salesmanship is so great that such people make all others powerless.
but i think there is an unpublicized, but not secret, gentile power in basic industry. when was the last jewish CEO of boeing? ford motor? exxon? etc.?
that is, it’s not only that (((they))) have too much power, but they also appear to have much more power than do.
Yeah they do bash Tillerson a lot. Theres a rumour I read that the jews hate oil men. Traditionally oil men have been depicted negatively in media for the reason oil men tend to be the type of gentiles elite jews hate.
Phils commebts in the last thread can be summarised as ‘we wuz kangz’. I remember when i was younger i heard about this theory that nubians were the brains of tge eygptian empire and not eygptuans.
Occams razor is so handy.
When you have to contort your explanation somethibg is going wrong. For ex occams razor wpuld suggest ashkenazis ans sephardics have different iqs, looks and temperaments because they are a different race of man.
“Phils commebts in the last thread can be summarised as ‘we wuz kangz’. I remember when i was younger i heard about this theory that nubians were the brains of tge eygptian empire and not eygptuans.”
So giving updated archaeology equates to afro-centrism? If I wanted to do the latter, I would’ve relied on egypt or “moors”.
Maybe we all weren’t kings but…sum of us WUZ kangz, NIGGA
you would like to think so. BUT…
as i’ve remarked before, the americas had more advanced civilizations than any in SSA. and geography doesn’t splain it. the maya lived in a swamp.
at the same time this means little (or nothing), because it isn’t clear that civilization is a good thing. or at least it wasn’t clear until very recently. in 1850 the life expectancy of europeans was no greater than that of cavemen. what’s changed since then in america and the developed world in general is antibiotics, vaccines, and sanitation.
“civilized” and “developed” are two very different things.
it took at least 2,000 years of civilization to show any benefit. AND…
initially civilization REDUCED life expectancy.
why should black africans be held to the fucked up standards of the rest of the world?
another reason i’m a particularist.
black africa should be left to solve its own problems and make its own civilization.
or rather, it should have been left…
colonialism may have FUBARed it..
now black africa has to deal with borders determined by europeans. it’s bullshit.
colonialism could have been a good thing, but colonialism up to whatever point in time followed by abandonment is the worst.
it could be the colonial powers’ borders are fairly close to the borders africans themselves would draw…it could be…idk.
but i agree with greg johnson that…
non-whites need to stop blaming whites for all of their problems.
“it could be the colonial powers’ borders are fairly close to the borders africans themselves would draw…it could be…idk.”
In what situation could you imagine a Christain/pagan group being okay to be grouped in the same national borders of a Islamic group by a third party to quite immediately have civil wars after independence?
I’m 0.1% african, just received my test. And 65% south europe and 34% (northwestern). My haplogroups are R-P311 for my dad (1 person out of 35) and L2A1C for mum (1 person out of 1300). If someone knows about those haplogroups, i’d like to know …. No genetic risk nor positive carrier status. And I have the athlete genes (wich i found not surprising, because i grow muscle very quickly).
your test is bullshit.
they all are.
larry david was 1/3d native american.
and that moron mexican believed it.
For 99.9% they are totally correct in my admixture of Northen Europe (35%) and Southern Europe (65%) and the regions.
For the 0.1% sub-saharan, that’s not the most important thing. The key is that my MtDNA is 100% African (L2a1C) . That’s why almost nobody has this in Europe. So my father Y-DNA is extremely recent mutation of R1b after Neanderthal disappeared but my MtDNA is from bantu people in an axis from Ouest africa to south east africa.
And I’ll check this soon because I booked two analysis from different companies, so they are still another result to come.
You were right Mugabe ! The second test said I’m 25% spanish 25% Italian 20% French 20% English 5% Irish and 5 % from Middle East. That’s quite different from the other one that said I’m 99.9% european and 0.1% black african ….
my test said i was 100% eskimo.
LMFAO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_owners_of_English_football_clubs
This is interesting. I went through the list and maybe up to 7/20 PL clubs have a jewish owner or co-owner. I was actually shocked! The jewish population in Britain is even tinier as a % of the pop than the US!
One of them, Tony Bloom made his money gambling on sports lol. That was impressive actually. The odds at bookmakers are usually shit.
Lots of the others made money in typical jewish type things: porn, financial trading, russian privitisations of state owned enterprises, law/athlete agent, private equity, and I think the guy with the polish surname is a jew and made his money in commodity trading.
When people say the jewish stereotypes about money and dealing are ‘prejudiced’, I would challenge anyone with a pulse to go through a jewish billionaires list and list % how many made money in 1 of: real estate, commodities, banking, pure gambling, hedge funds or private equity.
Its actually a bigger genetic leaning than blacks towards music or athletic pursuits.
Robert, I disagree. I don’t think selling is the reason per se. I think jews have had extreme evolution for a merchant mind. The happy merchant meme has a lot of truth to it.
For the highest IQ people there are 3 things about the jewish brain which are very odd:
1. Near similar amount of schizophrenia and autism in the population.
2. High VIQ but lacking in literature compared to gentiles (unless you count screenplays), even Slavic gentiles.
3. As Robert says, remarkable lack of jews in applied science – geology, chemistry, biology/genetics, medicine, engineering but surplus of jews in theoretical types of science like astronomy, finance, computer science and psychology/psychiatry/neurosci.
I think its because they are literally heavily selected to have businessmen brains – thats where I think the latent psychopathy comes from as well in my opinion. I can see why being a good merchant or businessman is more survival selected than engineer or tech worker.
Socrates said it best 2000 years ago. Just read it today on the train: “In Phoenicia, the people there are famed for loving money above all else”. I can give you a book and page reference. He said that. So the happy merchant meme was around back then even.
Phoenicia is the predecessor to palestine. Although my mid east history is weak. I don’t know if the jews came from eygpt to settle in phoenicia/canaan having originally been from there, or as this hisorian I read speculated, they are ethnically Egyptian but were cast out for cult worship of a monotheistic god.
Whatever the case, the people from that region were always historically traders and merchants.
How about Phillip Roth
And I remember you said before there’s no Jewish composers, but there’s plenty in popular music/film/Broadway (don’t care to list them all). The only major Broadway composers who weren’t Jewish were Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, Hoagy Carmichael, and Henry Mancini. The rest were all of Jewish, at least until the 90s (think Gershwin, Youmans, Bernstein, Newman, Berlin, Webber)
The above is all based on knowing history. If you don’t know history, none of your assertions will have context or a field test.
One of the thoughts I find most disturbing intellectually is if our history is completely doctored and our real history has been removed in book burnings. Archaeology is not really used on pre modern and modern research AFAIK.
Plato: “The Phoenecians and Eyptians love of money has turned their wisdom into cunning and trickery rather than love of knowledge”.
Can give page number and reference. He actually said that.
yeah.
i feel sorry…
for lesbians.
for fags.
for un-married heteros.
the abstraction of sex is (((peekaboo)))
street!
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5696e3fc/turbine/ct-olympics-skiing-picabo-street-domestic-violence-spt-20160113
street!
pooh bear.
again.
kerouac was…
1. a suicidal level drunk. he died from drinking too much…that takes commitment.
2. a french canadian. he referred to his mother as a “fish cunt”.
3. famous for telling the truth…NOT for being smart…he wasn’t that smart.
it means LESS…
AND…
it means MORE.
THIS TIME…
listen closely…
so it’s true that the way a man looks matters.
it does.
but i don’t wanna kiss kerouac.
i don’t want him inside me.
or me inside him.
i wanna be kerouac.
that book, or any book…
sympathetic.
…
we’re all gonna die.
…
sym-
path-
etic.
try again
a not very smart man.
a french canadian.
again.
it seems that vietnam was waged by the US for good (stupid) reasons.
that is, the american elite had good (stupid) reasons…misguided reasons.
BUT it seems the second iraq war was waged for evil reasons.
the gulf of tonkin was FAKE.
WMD was fake.
but fake for good and fake for evil.
think about it…
if the US and australia (not canada obviously…too gay) and other allies had done for s vietnam what they had done for s korea…
s korea is an awesome country today…unlike n korea.
whatever…
if it hadn’t been for the 58k americans killed, maybe the whole world would’ve gone commie.
but the whole world commie isn’t worse than the whole world capi.
all red states is just as bad as all blue states.
i hate communism, but i like chinese communism.
i’ve already said it…maybe…
according to the now playing Vietnam…
the US could have simply paid the insurgents to stop being insurgents/vietcong.
but the americans preferred to kill them.
gay on steroids.
this is consonant with my dutch uncle’s take.
he was there.
he told me…
the US could’ve won the war in a week.
if it had wanted to.
The My Lai massacre was amazing/horrific, depending on how you look at it:
peekaboo street looking old and ugly.

peepee’s atheism is about to change.
google “inventors”. do it. it’s ridiculous. you’d think blacks have invented 90% of the stuff.
this proves that google is just a (((media))) company, as i’ve said so many times.
latest where i am is…
Gloria Evangelina Anzaldúa (September 26, 1942 – May 15, 2004) was an American scholar of Chicana cultural theory, feminist theory, and queer theory.
i recommend to all those on the edge of committing to the alt-right…
get a black standard poodle descended from a champion or champions.
he’ll be very french, and he’ll be a nazi.
i’m NOT joking.
it’s un-mistake-able.
if a dog can be so bred…so can people.
again. NOT joking.
my black standard poodle WAS a nazi.
it was funny when someone described tony blair as “bush’s poodle”.
why?
because anyone who’s had a poodle knows…
poodles are nazis.
there are soup nazis and dog nazis.
poodles are nazis.
1. they’re geniuses. no other breed compares. they’re humans in a dog costume.
2. they don’t suffer fools. they bight. thankfully their bights don’t do permanent damage.
i think pill can become the next gilad atzmon.
he just has to give up the conspiracy theory shtick.
given that the nazis sent animal abusers to concentration camps…given that contemporary germany’s animal cruelty laws were written by nazis…
it’s OBVIOUS the nazis weren’t all bad.
hitler loved animals so much he didn’t eat them.
are there jewish animals?
atzmon is also a jazz sax-ist. is there any other kind of sax-ist?
maybe he turned when he grokked monk.
monk and heidegger do turn those who grok them.
monk sucks.
except here.
up there.
definitely in the top 10…
albums of the 20th c.
up there with the doors’ first album The Doors.
but unlike it…not quite miraculous…not quite an act of God.

an act of God…
straight outa socal.
that’s one thing my dad and i agree on.
The Doors was…
a miracle.
a miracle.
seriously.
a miracle.
how long does it take…
for the corpses to…
weigh as much as the empire state building?
about one month.
150,000 people die every day.
every day.
114,000 americans died in WWI.
58,000 in vietnam.
funny.
very funny.
when you think about it.
i had to sit behind a “stoner” in high school.
he was half hawaiian. he had a jap surname.
he reeked…
of smoke…
pot smoke.
how much more i would be if i hadn’t had to attend public school?
a lot more.
40 thousand men and women every day…
hawaii is the “fuck you” to ne asian supremacists.
peepee is a ne asian supremacist.
splain HAWAII!
40,000 men and women every day.
in terms of music…
i only post classics.
the classiest of the classics.
pill only posts crap.
why is that?
mystery.
very interesting…
the lead vocals for blue oyster cult were its sole jewish member. the band was formed on long island.
but lead vocals for The Reaper are NOT by bloom.
they’re by…
Donald “Buck Dharma” Roeser – guitar, synthesizer, percussion, lead vocals…
is he jewish?
would be awesome if europeans realized that indian religion is what would have happened to their religion if it weren’t for the jewish intellectual movement of christianity.
[redacted by pp, sept 26, 2017]
“Races who left Africa tens of thousands of years ago, and got at least some exposure to the ice age, evolved higher intelligence to survive the cold”
Yawn* I debunked this ages ago. I’ll come back when you have fresh, creative and original material to post again.
Well the main argument against cold winter theory is that dumb neanderthals survived the cold, but 1) they weren’t that dumb, and 2) they were physically evolved to the cold
It’s not just neanderthals. Other primates and early hominids (dumber than both sapiens and neanderthals) have also survived cold and seasonally cold regions (of course they would be, somewhat, presumably, physically adapted to the cold too.
The even less intelligent (less than neanderthals) heidelbergensis ancestors of neanderthals also survived in Europe—France, Germany, and Britain (neanderthals descend from heidelbergensis in Europe) for quite a long time. In Asia and Eurasia, heidelbergensis lived and eventually evolved into denisova The more primitive Erectus—dumber than heidelbergensis—(and heidelbergesis) occupied parts of Europe and Asia and Eurasia. Homo Erectus survived in the caucasus (in the form of a variant, homo Georgicus). Homo intercessor, more primitive than heidelbergensis (intermediate in sophistication between erectus and heidelbergensis—or a heidelberg/antecessor cross, lived as far north as England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_antecessor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis#Suffolk.2C_England
“Footprints presumed to be from H. antecessor dating to more than 800,000 years ago have been found at Happisburgh on the coast of Norfolk, England.[9][10][11][12]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmanisi#Homo_erectus_georgicus
Geographic range of heidelbergensis:
http://imgur.com/gallery/kJOgF
and Erectus:
http://www.athenapub.com/13intro-he.htm
Macaque monkeys (known as snow monkeys) live in the cold northern and central parts of Japan and monkey species (like the snub-nosed monkey) live from southern China (not so cold) to Central China (which is seasonally cold) and Tibet, which is cold-temperate
https://www.travelchinaguide.com/essential/tibet/what-pack.htm
Re Tibet:
“…Weather there is cool in summer, but excruciatingly cold in winter. In Lhasa, the relatively humane city of the region, although the temperature may exceed 29 degrees C (84 degrees F) in summer, it can also plummet to minus 16 degrees C (3 degrees F) in winter!”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snub-nosed_monkey
“Snub-nosed monkeys live in Asia, with a range covering southern China (especially Tibet, Sichuan, Yunnan, and Guizhou) as well as the northern parts of Vietnam and Myanmar.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_macaque
Various monkeys also live in the Himalayas (rhesus species, langurs, and other kinds of macaque).
If monkeys and apes are smart enough to adapt to cold climates, please explain why none are native to North America?
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/fyi-why-are-there-no-native-monkeys-america#page-5
Snow monkeys are a rare exception and rely heavily on enormous fur and hot springs to survive the cold.
“Well the main argument against cold winter theory is that dumb neanderthals survived the cold, but 1) they weren’t that dumb, and 2) they were physically evolved to the cold.”
1. They, by Rushton and Lynn standards, would still be less advance than humans.
2. The role of the cold environments on further “evolving humans” meets three pit stops.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/24/rk-selection-theory-a-response-to-rushton-by-racerealist-and-afrosapiens/comment-page-1/#comment-64156
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/12/25/i-apologize-to-homo-erectus/comment-page-1/#comment-42981
Click to access Bailey-Geary-2009-Human-Nature.pdf
Social competition > Climate.
Social competition > Climate
Social competition selects for intelligence, no doubt, but all human races faced social competition, so I fail to see how it explains the racial IQ hierarchy we see today.
The geographic range of Erectus (sorry to post again like this; the erectus link above apparently has suddenly ceased to work/is dead—I believe the site was good till recently): well into the temperate zone.
https://www.google.com/search?q=geographic+range+of+erectus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWxMOqpcTWAhUo9YMKHdUDDhkQ_AUICigB&biw=1066&bih=766#imgrc=PpMNdwmHsEuLKM:
Your map shows Erectus clearly did not live in regions as cold as modern humans lived, and neither did heidelbergensis or even the cold adapted Neanderthals:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/03/10/challenges-to-cold-winter-theory/
“Your map shows Erectus clearly did not live in regions as cold as modern humans lived, and neither did heidelbergensis or even the cold-adapted Neanderthals:”
Yet that is not the point, which is that Sapiens didn’t evolve in the cold and that since Habilis, studies comparing factors of human selection pressures shows social competition had a larger influence than climate.
Yet that is not the point, which is that Sapiens didn’t evolve in the cold
There were far more Hominins living in Africa, so odds are that’s where modern humans would evolve. Doesn’t prove intelligence selection pressures were greatest there.
and that since Habilis, studies comparing factors of human selection pressures shows social competition had a larger influence than climate.
In Africa, where the climate was warm? If so, tells us nothing about selection pressures when facing ice age.
“Social competition selects for intelligence, no doubt, but all human races faced social competition, so I fail to see how it explains the racial IQ hierarchy we see today.”
You fail to see because, somehow either by choice or instinct, you assume that competition *same* between populations in *different* environments with different resources and population traits.
Phil78, temperature during the ice age can be quantified. We can see that there’s a negative correlation between a population’s IQ and the temperature their ancestors endured during the ice age. You’ve presented no evidence of a correlation between social competition and racial IQs. How can social competition even be measured in ancestral populations? Did East Asia have more social competition than Europe, and especially more than sub-Saharan Africa? How do you know?
Forgot to “throughout different time periods” as well.
Seeing how humans are social animals, doesn’t take much to figure out that relationships between others would influence our evolution.
“Your map shows Erectus clearly did not live in regions as cold as modern humans lived, and neither did heidelbergensis or even the cold-adapted Neanderthals:”
My point was that hominids less intelligent than neanderthals (and much less so than sapiens) were able to survive the cold in regions as far north as the upper temperate zone and parts of Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus (far north of their original habitats)—and the Altai mountains of Siberia in the case of Denisova; where it has been suggested here that a less intelligent hominid could not. Homo Antecessor lived in England.
“Snow monkeys are a rare exception and rely heavily on enormous fur and hot springs to survive the cold.”
It is true that they are more northern extended than other monkeys (by a significant degree). But not they are not the only ones that can live in freezing temperatures for a part of the year. Snub nosed monkeys (in some of their range) and some of the Himalayan species do as well.
Snub nosed monkeys in winter:
https://www.google.com/search?q=snub+nosed+monkeys+in+winter&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjevsH298TWAhUFQSYKHaqqBf8Q_AUICigB&biw=1066&bih=766
My point was that hominids less intelligent than neanderthals (and much less so than sapiens) were able to survive the cold in regions as far north as the upper temperate zone and parts of Northern and Central Europe and the Caucasus (far north of their original habitats)—and the Altai mountains of Siberia in the case of Denisova; where it has been suggested here that a less intelligent hominid could not. Homo Antecessor lived in England.
But it still doesn’t debunk the overall correlation between intelligence and Northern migration in our genus, it merely shows the correlation had exceptions. I’m not say you MUST be smart to survive the cold; only that it might have increased the odds, so high IQ genes may have been favoured over time.
“There were far more Hominins living in Africa, so odds are that’s where modern humans would evolve. Doesn’t prove intelligence selection pressures were greatest there.”
No, that answers nothing. Human intelligence towards sapiens wasn’t just “chance”. nor does the humber of hominids explain how between the common ancestor of humans and neanderthals evolving in Africa and eurasia didn’t spring birth to modern humanity in eurasia with higher intelligence.
“In Africa, where the climate was warm? If so, tells us nothing about selection pressures when facing ice age.?”
The study uses fossils from habilis to about 10k about, so they were covering the ice age. It said nothing abut only covering african hominids.
No, that answers nothing. Human intelligence towards sapiens wasn’t just “chance”.
The evolution of a new species does involve chance. Before selection can even occur, new genetic variety must occur by chance for natural selection to even select from.
didn’t spring birth to modern humanity in eurasia with higher intelligence.
There’s no strong evidence that modern humans were smarter than Neanderthals until about 45,000 years ago, by which time most Eurasians had some exposure to colder climates.
The study uses fossils from habilis to about 10k about, so they were covering the ice age. It said nothing abut only covering african hominids.
Vague reference to a study of unknown relevance proves little.
“Phil78, temperature during the ice age can be quantified. We can see that there’s a negative correlation between a population’s IQ and the temperature their ancestors endured during the ice age.”
See Melo’s other comment that I linked towards.
“You’ve presented no evidence of a correlation between social competition and racial IQs.”
I did present evidence that social IQ had an overall larger impact of human evolution, so obvious new and environments, new population structure, and new resources would result in new competition
“How can social competition even be measured in ancestral populations? Did East Asia have more social competition than Europe, and especially more than sub-Saharan Africa? How do you know?”
Population density was used in the study, had you even bothered to read it. In human history, you have Hunter Gatherers Farmers, and Urbanites. The general trend results in not only higher densities but more concentrated competition.
I did present evidence that social IQ had an overall larger impact of human evolution, so obvious new and environments, new population structure, and new resources would result in new competition
So you agree with me that colder (newer) geographic environments selected for IQ, you’re just saying they were selective because people had to compete to survive in them. In other words, it took more IQ to survive the cold if you’re a human because you’re competing with other humans to exploit the surroundings, but it takes less IQ if you’re an erectus because you’re only competing against dumb erectus. If that’s your point I agree.
Population density was used in the study, had you even bothered to read it. In human history, you have Hunter Gatherers Farmers, and Urbanites. The general trend results in not only higher densities but more concentrated competition.
Now we’re getting somewhere. So do the races differ in ancestral population density in ways that correlate with their current IQs?
The correlation is in the environment. Only locations with plenty of agricultural food produce clever people.
The smartest people are from the ‘Fertile Crescent’ aka Jews.
I still think Jewish intelligence is a fraud however, until I see a study controlling Jewish and White intelligence for culture.
“I still think Jewish intelligence is a fraud however, until I see a study controlling Jewish and White intelligence for culture.”
There is evidence that Ashkenazic IQ claims have been overstated.
Ashkenazi IQ is (from the periods we have data) actually closer to 107-10 (in America) and about 103-4 in Israel, according to the most representative analysis of known data (from the 20th century). The 115 claim is not well founded but gets bandied about a lot. And some of he advantage that does exist may of course be cultural. See the study by Ferguson
“How Jews Became Smart: Anti-“Natural History of Ashkenazi”Intelligence”l. R. Brian Ferguson.
Click to access How%20Jews%20Became%20Smart%20%282008%29.pdf
“The evolution of a new species does involve chance. Before selection can even occur, new genetic variety must occur by chance for natural selection to even select from.”
Species result from sellection which changes the genetic diversity, not necessarily that “new diversity” appear out of nowhere.
For example, selection for new species can begin with already existing mutation, what causes it is the selection pressures.
“There’s no strong evidence that modern humans were smarter than Neanderthals until about 45,000 years ago, by which time most Eurasians had some exposure to colder climates.”
Look up Aterian tools.
Second, article relied on this assumption.
“How can we account for the fact that Neanderthals had bigger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens but nonetheless they were eventually eliminated? Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities, thus we are led into believing the Neanderthals were, on the average, smarter than us. How it is than that our ancestors managed to gradually eliminate them?”
He thought that their larger brains made them smarter and tried to explain why nonetheless were surmise, not that they SHOWED no differences before Humans went into Europe.
He then concluded that human language, created while in Africa, caused their extinction.
“Thus, it seems that the ultimate reason behind Neanderthals extinction was not due to their mental capacities but to the shape of their larynx.”
Regardless, he was wrong on his intial assumption.
https://www.livescience.com/27850-social-brain-beat-neanderthal-vision.html
Asserting that two subspecies with greater genetic distance and greater environment extreme are equal in intellect, yet scoff at human mental equality, is just dishonest.
“Vague reference to a study of unknown relevance proves little.”
It means nothing to you because you are stubborn, stubborn enough to pretty much be outright dishonest.
At first you said Neanderthals “weren’t that dumb”, now you said that they were of equal intelligence to humans despite lacking symbolic intelligence of their own prior to the occupation of Europe by humans or were predated by humans in in these respects.
From the studies’ discussion.
First it covers factors of latitude and paleoclimate to be insifficient.
“In any case, the latitude, temperature, parasite, and paleoclimatic variables leave
much of the variation in cranial capacity unexplained, once our measure of
population density is controlled. The measure is conceptually and statistically
simple. We assume that migration of hominids from central Africa was due to
expanding populations and a corresponding reduction in the carrying capacity of the
surrounding ecology. To capture expansion, our measure counts the number of
fossils outside of the central area in which the oldest specimen in our sample was
found. For each fossil, the count includes all other fossils found before or at the time
of the existence of this individual. It might be argued that climatic or ecological
changes and not an increase in population triggered migration. However, if this were
the case, then we would not expect fossils to be found in this central region
throughout the time span of our study, but Fig. 1 (panel 1) shows that many of our
ancestors remained in this region while others migrated. It is possible that hominids
migrated from this central region and then returned after experiencing an increase in
CC. However, genetic analyses of extant human populations suggest that the pattern
in the data we analyzed is not likely due to large-scale return of populations that
migrated from the equator (Li et al. 2008), but rather hominids in all areas of the
world showed increases in CC.”
See the specific note on the effect of migration and translate that to humans.
“In any event, the predictive power of our population density variable is clear: As
shown in the first panel of Fig. 2, cranial capacity increases systematically with
population density. To the extent the variable captures changes in population density
during the evolution of hominids, the results provide strong empirical evidence for the
social competition model of Alexander (1989), Holloway (1967), and others (Brothers
1990; Dunbar 1998, 2003; Flinn et al. 2005; Geary 2005; Humphrey 1976). The
exponential increase in CC across time is particularly important for Alexander’s
(1989) ecological dominance and social-competition hypothesis. As hominids reduced
mortality risks through improvements in hunting ability, cooking, and skill at
manipulating the ecology (e.g., shelters), the relative balance of selective pressures
shifted from climatic and ecological to social. In addition to increased migration, the
corresponding population increases are predicted to create the potential for a withinspecies
arms race. To the extent success at competing with conspecifics was
dependent on increasingly sophisticated cognitive functions, the predicted result is
an exponential increase in cranial capacity and cognitive ability (Flinn et al. 2005;
Gavrilets and Vose 2006; Geary 2005). A within-species arms race would also result in
increases in CC throughout the world, as we found and contra strictly climatic and
ecological models. Finally, the increases in the population density variable (Fig. 2) are
associated with slight decreases in CC at high levels. This decrease suggests a
relaxation in selection pressures on CC with high population densities, possibility
coincident with the emergence of agriculture, and larger, socially and economically
organized villages and city-states (Brace 1995).”
For example, selection for new species can begin with already existing mutation, what causes it is the selection pressures.
And who are more likely to luck into an advantageous mutation? A big population or a small population? Luck favours large numbers so this explains why modern humans evolved in Africa even if selection pressures were greater outside Africa.
“There’s no strong evidence that modern humans were smarter than Neanderthals until about 45,000 years ago, by which time most Eurasians had some exposure to colder climates.”
There is evidence that they were. I have cited it here before, that were long before 45,000 bc, e.g.: the first projectiles at Gademotta 279 ka bc and arrows at Sibudu at least ca 70 ka bc (which neanderthals didi not have) , heat treating stone and tools including microliths at Pinnacle point 164-70 Ka bc. worked and specialized bone tools including harpoons at Katanda 90 ka BC and Blombos, long distance transport/exchange of minerals (which neanderthals did not engage in),as well as the cultures at Blombos, Howieson’s Poort and Diepkloof, (and the Aterian, which Phil mentioned).
And as mentioned, neanderthals (which were probably smarter than hominids other than sapiens) were not the only hominids that survived the cold in Eurasia. Hominids less smart than they also did. Repeated waves of hominids left Africa migrating into temperate Eurasia, (some being: erectus, antecessor, heidelbergensis, and finally sapiens), from the very primitive to the more advanced. I would not really call that a mere exception.
“Second, article relied on this assumption.
“How can we account for the fact that Neanderthals had bigger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens but nonetheless they were eventually eliminated? Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities, thus we are led into believing the Neanderthals were, on the average, smarter than us. How it is than that our ancestors managed to gradually eliminate them?””
More of their brain space was devoted to controlling their larger bodies and eyes (partly because of their quasi-nocturnal habits), controlling for which, their brains were somewhat smaller. Sapiens also had a larger prefrontal cortex (more associated with higher order order cognition).
Jm8, good point about projectile weapons. That’s strong evidence that modern humans became more technologically advanced than Neanderthals even before leaving Africa, contrary to what i stated.
But according to the softpedia article i linked to, prior to 100,000 years ago, neanderthals were more technologically advanced than modern humans.
I agree sub-humans can survive in cold areas, but i don’t think they could have survived EXTREME cold areas that modern humans endured during the last ice age
The early modern human cultures mentioned above in my post are, of course, in various parts of Africa.
“But according to the softpedia article i linked to, prior to 100,000 years ago, neanderthals were more technologically advanced than modern humans.”
That’s not what the evidence shows. Generally sapiens seem to have been more advanced technologically; even in many cases and ways, in the earliest periods (at any rate were not less so)—though there might have been some cases where (and/or certain respects in which) the gap was not too great.
Softpedia was referring to this culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousterian
In which case is irrelevant because the only real sophistication is the use of more refined handaxes and points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mousterian
By comparison, Sapiens were actually inventing new projectiles (the first projectiles mind) among other technological method advancements.
That’s hardly “more advanced”.
By comparison, Sapiens were actually inventing new projectiles (the first projectiles mind) among other technological method advancements
Yes, after 70,000 years we surpassed them technologically, but prior to that they were more advanced than we were, because they, in Eurasia, evolved from a more technologically advanced population than modern humans, in Africa, did, underscoring the well documented correlation between cold climate and technology that is seen even among contemporary hunter-gatherers.
“And who are more likely to luck into an advantageous mutation? A big population or a small population? Luck favours large numbers so this explains why modern humans evolved in Africa even if selection pressures were greater outside Africa.”
That big population would mean nothing if selection wasn’t present, higher densities to stem social competition would fuel it as it has shown to do throughout human history.
Without it, you would just have a pool of diversity, the presence of it doesn’t grant change.
That big population would mean nothing if selection wasn’t present
Selection for higher intelligence occurred everywhere, but selection may have been stronger in cold climates BUT the greater selection in the cold was sometimes trumped by greater population in warmer areas, thus explaining why modern humans evolved in Africa and not Eurasia.
Also, let’s bring up Pott’s theory.
Climatic variability, in the study I posted, compared to mean temperatures, had a stronger correlation under the ecological variables of paleoclimates.
That aligns with the role of shifting wet and dry periods in Africa preventing specialization seen in neanderthals, conforms with larger brains in animals conforming with animal behavioral plasticity,
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/368/1618/20120339
and even Melo’s observations comparing people of the extremes in IQ versus those of more variable conditions.
So, therefore, the pressures in Africa were greater.
And finally, the problem with your reliance on IQ and latitude is just noting the correlation and not actually analyzing longitudinal differences between populations through time to verify either a casual relationship or a third factor.
Even relying on the Inuit is faulty as they diverge much later than the existence of Cro-magnons despite living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, you have failed to outline changes in population size, density, resources, and competition between africans and Non-African beyond the postulations of those who aren’t paleontologists
That aligns with the role of shifting wet and dry periods in Africa preventing specialization seen in neanderthals, conforms with larger brains in animals conforming with animal behavioral plasticity,
If Africa’s environment selects more for intelligence, then why aren’t blacks the most intelligent race?
And finally, the problem with your reliance on IQ and latitude is just noting the correlation and not actually analyzing longitudinal differences between populations through time to verify either a casual relationship or a third factor.
What kind of third factor would plausibly explain the correlation? It might be that the cold selects for brain size (and not intelligence per se) as Mug of Pee likes to argue, but that’s still cold climate selecting for IQ at least indirectly.
“If Africa’s environment selects more for intelligence, then why aren’t blacks the most intelligent race?”
I was referring to ancient East Africa and North Africa, not the entire continent through time.
“What kind of third factor would plausibly explain the correlation? It might be that the cold selects for brain size (and not intelligence per se) as Mug of Pee likes to argue, but that’s still cold climate selecting for IQ at least indirectly.”
Try disease load.
“In the subsequent analysis, IQ LV is the abbreviation used for Lynn and Vanhanen’s (2006) data, while IQ ML and IQ WCM denote, respectively, Meisenberg and Lynn’s (2011) and Wicherts, Dolan, and van der Maas’s (2010) IQ data. Table 2 reports the matrix of correlations among the variables. The correlations among the IQs from different sources are higher than 0.90. IQs LV are correlated 0.73 with income and average years of schooling, −0.66 with temperature and 0.70 with absolute latitude. The correlations of these variables with IQs ML and IQs WCM are, of course, analogous. The correlations between IQs LV and DALY rates are very high: −0.87 with infections, −0.77 with nutritional, −0.79 with perinatal and −0.85 with maternal diseases. The coefficients are slightly lower for IQ WCM, because of the different IQ scores attributed to Sub-Saharan countries. Since the burden of diseases is higher in the less developed countries, education and, particularly, GNI per capita, are significantly and negatively related to diseases. Finally, the correlations between DALY rates are about 0.90”
Click to access The-burden-of-disease-and-the-IQ-of-nations.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000572
“Support is provided for the finding that a national index of parasite burden and national IQ are strongly linked and temperature also features strongly in the models. However, we tentatively recommend a physiological – via impacts on host–parasite interactions – rather than evolutionary explanation for the effect of temperature. We present this study primarily to highlight the danger of ignoring autocorrelation in spatially extended data, and outline an appropriate approach should a spatially explicit analysis be considered necessary.”
“Yes, after 70,000 years we surpassed them technologically, but prior to that they were more advanced than we were, because they, in Eurasia, evolved from a more technologically advanced population than modern humans, in Africa, did, underscoring the well documented correlation between cold climate and technology that is seen even among contemporary hunter-gatherers.”
Reread What I and Jm8 outlined, specifically the dates of the Aterian culture and it’s relevance to symbolic thinking and projectiles.
Also see the limited amounted of “technicality” from prior to 100k and post 100k between Human and Neanderthals. Before going into Europe, Sapiens were still more advance as well as prior to 100k.
“But selection for higher intelligence occurred everywhere, but selection may have been stronger in cold climates BUT the greater selection in the cold was sometimes trumped by greater population in warmer areas, thus explaining why modern humans evolved in Africa and not Eurasia.”
Except the study shows, for Cranial Capacity, the significance from greatest to least is Social competition, Climatic variability, and Mean Temperature.
Also, variation in brain size was comparable to, if not slightly higher, in Asian erectus.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htm
Phil78, I agree disease/malnutrition is a major factor in explaining why warm countries have lower IQs than cold countries, but:
1) I was asking whether there was any HBD explanation for why ancestral temperature and IQ should be correlated other than cold selecting for higher IQ; disease is a non-genetic explanation
2) The disease load explanation fails to explain why the race IQ patterns are reproduced within the United States
Except the study shows, for Cranial Capacity, the significance from greatest to least is Social competition, Climatic variability, and Mean Temperature.
Also, variation in brain size was comparable to, if not slightly higher, in Asian erectus.
Not sure how these are rebuttals to what I said.
BTW, more support for climatic variability effecting brain size not just in Africa, but in Asia as well with Erectus with the appearance and disappearance of lakes.
” The largest change in brain size, associated with the appearance of the Homo erectus super-species is associated with the period of maximal ephemeral lake coverage.This jump of 80% expansion in cranial capacity occurs during one of only two periods when there is evidence for at least 5 of the 7 major intra-rift lake basins being active. Subsequently, the underlying trend towards increasing brain size in Homo is most strongly correlated *with both decreases in lake presence and high levels of dust deposition in the Mediterranean ODP967 record (Table 3), indicating drier conditions in East Africa [43]*. Brain size change in African hominins was not predicted by either Arabian Sea dust or global benthic foraminifera δ18O records. *In contrast, patterns of hominin encephalisation in Eurasia were positively associated with lake presence*. This later finding stems from the association between dispersal events and lakes: larger brained African hominins colonised Eurasia during periods when extensive lakes in the EARS push them out of Africa (Figure 1). *Taken together, this suggests that small steps in brain expansion in Africa may have been driven by regional aridity*. In contrast, the great leap forward in early Homo brain size at 1.8 Ma was *associated with the novel ecological conditions [28] associated with the appearance and disappearance of deep-freshwater lakes long the whole length of the EARS (Figure 1)*. The effects of the lake variability may have been enhanced at 1.8 Ma as key geological features that fragment the current lake Basins had yet to form; including the Barrier volcano separating Lake Turkana and the Suguta valley (∼1.4 Ma eastern side and ∼0.7 Ma western side) and the Emuruangogolak volcano (∼1.3 Ma), and Namarunu volcano (0.8 Ma) which separate Lake Baringo and the Suguta Valley [35]–[37], [44]. Hence during wet periods at about 1.8 Ma one huge lake may have extended perioidically from the Omo National Park in the north to just north of Lake Baringo in the south covering over 16,000 km2.
Also, see here on more support of social competition in Africa.
“There could be three evolutionary processes could explain this adaptive radiation of hominins: 1) the occupation of novel niches for species living in a highly productive but spatially constrained region when there are deep fresh water lakes in the EARS [46] and 2) the lakes themselves creating spatial structure producing population isolation and vicariance and 3) repeated periods of increased resource availability stimulated adaptation and radiation followed by periods of environmental stress when the lakes rapidly dried up imposing strong selection pressures [28]. *Given that fossils from multiple hominin species, including P. boisei, H. erectus spp., H. habilis and H. rudolfensis, have all been discovered at Koobi Fora and attributed to the period of maximal lake coverage (∼1.8–1.9 Ma), it may be possible that these hominins were sympatric and in competition* [48]. Moreover, the Paranthropus sp. are associated with habitats that incorporate wetlands [8], [49], which would have been more available during periods of maximal lake coverage. It is interesting to note that *hominin diversity drops from six down to only one during the period when deep-water lakes are in decline across the landscape (Figure 1) supporting the suggestion that competition was a major driver of hominin evolution*. The Last Appearance Dates of the Paranthropus sp. is contemporary with the disappearance of deep-water lakes and an onset of an arid cycle.”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076750
“Yes, after 70,000 years we surpassed them technologically, but prior to that they were more advanced than we were,”
As I mentioned (and have discussed before), this is not in evidence—it’s not the case before 100 ka bc, and much less before 70 ka (and the earliest projectiles appear around 279 ka bc at Gademotta Ethiopia with early sapiens and provide a significant advantage over early neanderthal/heidelbergensis forms of hunting. Bows and arrows specifically though, as far as we know come around 70 ka bc at Sibudu in South Africa—after the older sapiens projectiles like atlatls and javelins—, but possibly earlier at Blombos/Pinnacle Point, and bows may be invented more than once by sapiens first in Africa, and again in various places in the Paleolithic.) The Aterian culture starting 150 ka bc is also well before 70 ka, as is the Pinnacle point—164 ka-70 ka and Blombos culture of 100-70 ka in South Africa, and The bone harpoons associated with watercraft fishing of deep water species of the Katanda/Semliki river peoples in E. Central Africa date to 90 ka bc..
Even Before 100,000 in many of these instances sapiens show traits that are more advanced. In the very earliest periods the gap between they (though it tends overall to favor sapiens or begins to do so somewhat at least in parts of Africa by around 270 ka bc in some respects) and neanderthals is not always in other respects too substantial, and in some respects their toolkits are not too different in certain regions; both begin early on with with generally mousterian type-tool kits (in the sapiens case, toolkits in several African regions surpass neanderthals and develop more advanced upper-paleolithic traits—some cited above—very early on, until the full/more complete upper paleolithic—or LSA as it’s known in Africa—forms/takes shape)
“because they, in Eurasia, evolved from a more technologically advanced population than modern humans,”
Nor is that in evidence (at least not once significant divergence had occurred). Both evolved from branches of Heidelbergensis and (early in their (respective) divergences used toolkits classifiable as of the mousterian type (or MSA/middle stone age in Africa), adapted to their respective environments. African and European heidelbergensis (pre neanderthals and pre sapiens) both had toolkits based on hafted thrusting spears with levallois points and scrapers and regularly used fire (which their more primitive ancestor erectus could at best do sporadically).
The invention of projectiles was an important distinguishing feature in the development of modern humans (and unique to them, not being used by other/earlier hominids such as heidelbergensis or neanderthals)
Such require a greater estimation of trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind. And that (beginning likely with distance javelins) seems to date to the early period of 279,000 bc (when we now know early homo sapiens had already diverged in Africa)
These first projectiles are likely mostly javelins, but some possibly atlatls (with atlatls/woomeras created either roughly contemporarily or—more likely—soon after javelins)
“Earliest Stone-Tipped Projectiles from the Ethiopian Rift Date to >279,000 Years Ago”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092
“Projectile weapons (i.e. those delivered from a distance) enhanced prehistoric hunting efficiency by enabling higher impact delivery and hunting of a broader range of animals while reducing confrontations with dangerous prey species. Projectiles therefore provided a significant advantage over thrusting spears. Composite projectile technologies are considered indicative of complex behavior and pivotal to the successful spread of Homo sapiens. Direct evidence for such projectiles is thus far unknown from >80,000 years ago. Data from velocity-dependent microfracture features, diagnostic damage patterns, and artifact shape reported here indicate that pointed stone artifacts from Ethiopia were used as projectile weapons (in the form of hafted javelin tips) as early as >279,000 years ago. In combination with the existing archaeological, fossil and genetic evidence, these data isolate eastern Africa as a source of modern cultures and biology.”
The preparation of stone for making microliths (likely used for javelins, harpoons and other projectiles as well as cutting tools) by precise heat treating to increase its flakeability was practiced at pinnacle point SA. from ca 164,000 bc-70,000 bc. (by homo sapiens)
“An early and enduring advanced technology originating 71,000 years ago in South Africa”
(the practice of heat treating began earlier (ca. 164,000 BC)
“Fire As an Engineering Tool of Early Modern Humans” | Science
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5942/859
“…The analysis of tools at multiple sites shows that the source stone materials were systematically manipulated with fire to improve their flaking properties. Heat treatment predominates among silcrete tools at ~72 thousand years ago (ka) and appears as early as 164 ka at Pinnacle Point, on the south coast of South Africa. Heat treatment demands a sophisticated knowledge of fire and an elevated cognitive ability and appears at roughly the same time as widespread evidence for symbolic behavior.”
Compound heated fat-based paints were made at Blombos by 100,000 BC: paints made not only by simply grinding minerals (as earlier hominids sometimes did), but by a more complex process more like the paint-making/formulas of later ancient cultures and civilizations (and like those of later stone age homo sapiens in Africa and Europe/Eurasia); of heating ground ocher mixed with animal fat and charcoal.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15257259
Wow, Jm8, you really are an expert on this stuff! Reading your comments is like taking a university course in anthropology. I haven’t had time to digest everything you said considering the large volume of comments I have to approve but a couple points come to mind:
1) Are mere projectiles really more impressive than Neanderthal technology? I realize the bow and arrow and other complex projectiles are a quantum leap forward, but Neanderthals already had spears so merely creating one that is light enough to throw does not sound like much of an innovation. On that point, do we really know when the bow and arrow was invented? I realize arrow tips were found dating back 70,000 years, but how they can be sure these were used for bow and arrows and not more primitive projectiles, I know not.
2) You’ve provided so much excellent information, but my fear is that you’re cherry picking the best of modern human accomplishment while ignoring contemporaneous Neanderthal accomplishments. What’s needed is a study that did a systematic technological comparison of where both species were at hundreds of thousands of years ago.
”>Selection for higher intelligence occurred everywhere, but selection may have been stronger in cold climates BUT the greater selection in the cold was sometimes trumped by greater population in warmer areas, thus explaining why modern humans evolved in Africa and not Eurasia.<''
Do you mean AMH evolved in africa because of greater number of IQ beneficial mutations arising (because of more pop) and spreading into the high pop in africa leading to bigger army of smart people which lead to the evolution of AMH ? But if the pop is greater wont less number of people as a percentage have those high IQ mutations?
Also colder climate (which i believe you think too) gives rise to more high IQ causing mutations as compared to hotter climes. And if neanderthal pop was low, more number of neanderthals as a percentage would be having those high IQ mutations. And that could have made them smarter than their contemporaries in africa and/or helped them evolve into anatomically modern humans. But it didnt.
I wonder why?
Edit (it just occurred to me now): or it could be possible because of the higher likelihood of R selection over K selection in africa as compared to K selection in neanderthal europe? Dumb people would have been more likely killed……..in wars or due to competition for mates in africa compared to those in europe and this could have lead to more smart people as a percentage in the african group as compared to their contemporary european neanderthal group and this may have lead to AMH arising in africa rather than in europe?
Do you mean AMH evolved in africa because of greater number of IQ beneficial mutations arising (because of more pop) and spreading into the high pop in africa leading to bigger army of smart people which lead to the evolution of AMH ? But if the pop is greater wont less number of people as a percentage have those high IQ mutations?
Yes, but that’s where natural selection comes in. Even though Africa arguably had less selection for IQ than Eurasia, they still had some, so high IQ mutations would spread like wild fire until virtually the whole continent showed behavioral modernity. Now those same mutations may have spread even faster in Eurasia, but they didn’t occur because of the tiny population.
Also colder climate (which i believe you think too) gives rise to more high IQ causing mutations as compared to hotter climes.
No, I’m not arguing colder climates caused more high IQ mutations (though stress does induce them), only that cold climates may SELECT for them more efficiently. But that selection would mean nothing if the population was too small to allow such rare mutations to occur in the first place. That would solve the paradox of modern humans evolving in Africa despite Eurasia supposedly being more selective for high IQ.
And if neanderthal pop was low, more number of neanderthals as a percentage would be having those high IQ mutations.
If their population was low they wouldn’t generate rare mutations in the first place because such mutations have such a low chance of occurring, that you need a huge population for enough of them to occur.
“1) Are mere projectiles really more impressive than Neanderthal technology? I realize the bow and arrow and other complex projectiles are a quantum leap forward, but Neanderthals already had spears so merely creating one that is light enough to throw does not sound like much of an innovation.”
It does provide an advantage (allowing the hunting of animals from a greater distance) and likely is linked to certain cognitive abilities (and took a while in hominid evolution to arise; neither heidelbergensis nor neanderthal did it in they time they existed). And the replacement of other hominids by sapiens may, at least in part, be related to its advantages and the cognitive traits correlated to it)
As I said”
“Such require a greater estimation of trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind.”
See abstract:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078092
“On that point, do we really know when the bow and arrow was invented? I realize arrow tips were found dating back 70,000 years, but how they can be sure these were used for bow and arrows and not more primitive projectiles, I know not.”
Extensive tests were done for this in the studies (as I explained to MeLo awhile back on another thread). The size and types of fractures were indicative of use as arrows (they also very closely resemble Bushman arrows) rather than javelins. Both bone arrowheads (common with the Bushman) and tiny microliths suited to being used to make arrowheads have been found.
re cherry picking:
I mentioned that the (technological) gap between the two species is not always so substantial—and in some areas of technology, the two are comparable in early periods of their respective histories. But the general tendency (as far as we know) tends to/begins to favor sapiens (prior to 70 ka). Neanderthals in some cases show some evidence of modern-like behavior (for instance they made adhesives at at least one site, as early modern humans also did). But certain instances (though not all of them) of apparently early sapiens-like behavior (like ornament making in the Chatelperronian assemblage/culture) among neanderthals tend to occur around the time sapiens arrive in Europe—as the Chattelperonian does—(many but not all occur then), suggesting the possibility of sapiens influence (though that of course cannot yet be proven conclusively). The S. European Ulluzzian culture of the American period is now attributed to sapiens.
But (whether sapiens was substantially more advanced than neanderthal prior to 70 ka or not) your statement was that neanderthals were more advanced prior to 70 ka, (quoted from a non-scholarly online article) and this is not the case (nor considered so in archaeology).
It does provide an advantage (allowing the hunting of animals from a greater distance) and likely is linked to certain cognitive abilities (and took a while in hominid evolution to arise; neither heidelbergensis nor neanderthal did it in they time they existed). And the replacement of other hominids by sapiens may, at least in part, be related to its advantages and the cognitive traits correlated to it)
I would say the invention of the bow and arrow (70,000 years ago) is what allowed modern humans to replace other hominins, especially since its invention date corresponds with the Out of Africa expansion
As I said “Such require a greater estimation of trajectory and distance, and the ability to design weapons with these things in mind.”
Let’s not get carried away. It’s just a spear that’s light enough to throw. The bow and arrow on the other hand is truly impressive.
But (whether sapiens was substantially more advanced than neanderthal prior to 70 ka or not) your statement was that neanderthals were more advanced prior to 70 ka, (quoted from a non-scholarly online article) and this is not the case (nor considered so in archaeology).
At the moment I can’t find a scholarly source claiming that Neanderthals were more advanced before 70 K years ago, but there is evidence modern humans were very technologically primitive before that time. I document the evidence here:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/10/29/behavioral-modernity/
“Phil78, I agree disease/malnutrition is a major factor in explaining why warm countries have lower IQs than cold countries, but:
1) I was asking whether there was any HBD explanation for why ancestral temperature and IQ should be correlated other than cold selecting for higher IQ; disease is a non-genetic explanation”
Lets take a step back, observing ancestral environment for the IQ/latitude correlation was and assumption to begin with by observing the MODERN association.
My studies show that, compared to latitude and temperature, disease loads had a stronger correlation.
“2) The disease load explanation fails to explain why the race IQ patterns are reproduced within the United States.”
Afrosapiens has outlined multiple environmental factors in the U.S. Second, even if the causes are genetic, I’ve already demonstrated that cold environments themselves don’t explain brain expansion.
“Not sure how these are rebuttals to what I said.”
Your quote-‘But selection for higher intelligence occurred everywhere, but selection may have been stronger in cold climates BUT the greater selection in the cold was sometimes trumped by greater population in warmer areas, thus explaining why modern humans evolved in Africa and not Eurasia.’
1. You claimed that Asian Erectus had lower variation due to smaller population, they did not based on distributions.
2. You always pointed towards the casualty of cold environments, yet temperature itself doesn’t explain it in multiple analysis on different factors in brain expansion.
My data accounts for why Africa’s selection pressures actually occurred as well as Eurasia’s, point toward climatic varability.
“1) Are mere projectiles really more impressive than Neanderthal technology? I realize the bow and arrow and other complex projectiles are a quantum leap forward, but Neanderthals already had spears so merely creating one that is light enough to throw does not sound like much of an innovation.”
That “mere” isn’t warranted when you don;t even outline Neanderthal technology itself. All they did, in comparison to human, was make small point and sharp blades apart of hand axes.
Sapiens, on top of that, integrated fire into the process of making tools.
” On that point, do we really know when the bow and arrow was invented? I realize arrow tips were found dating back 70,000 years, but how they can be sure these were used for bow and arrows and not more primitive projectiles, I know not.”
The point is that Humans were creating more varied tools that neanderthals for wider array of uses as well as more experimentation with fire in the process.
“2) You’ve provided so much excellent information, but my fear is that you’re cherry picking the best of modern human accomplishment while ignoring contemporaneous Neanderthal accomplishments. What’s needed is a study that did a systematic technological comparison of where both species were at hundreds of thousands of years ago.”
If you know something Jm8 doesn’t, don’t accuse him of cherry picking and present it yourself.
“Yes, but that’s where natural selection comes in. Even though Africa arguably had less selection for IQ than Eurasia, they still had some, so high IQ mutations would spread like wild fire until virtually the whole continent showed behavioral modernity. Now those same mutations may have spread even faster in Eurasia, but they didn’t occur because of the tiny population.”
My Data on selection and Erectus distributions in CC argue otherwise.
Afrosapiens has outlined multiple environmental factors in the U.S.
So you have one set of environmental explanations to explain the low black IQ in the U.S… A second set to explain it worldwide. And then you have a bunch of historical arguments to explain the lack of black achievements all through history. All your arguments are ad hoc, meanwhile the cold winter theory helps explain all these things parsimoniously.
Second, even if the causes are genetic, I’ve already demonstrated that cold environments themselves don’t explain brain expansion.
There’s a worldwide correlation between brain size and latitude and Cro-Magnon brain size increased as they entered freezing Europe
You claimed that Asian Erectus had lower variation due to smaller population, they did not based on distributions.
I don’t think you can make such strong claims about distributions based on such an incomplete fossil record, and I’m not talking about brain size, but truly rare mutations that enhanced brain efficiency or created complex language.
My data accounts for why Africa’s selection pressures actually occurred as well as Eurasia’s, point toward climatic varability.
I agree that climatic variability increased intelligence in Africa, but how does that explain racial differences?
That “mere” isn’t warranted when you don;t even outline Neanderthal technology itself. All they did, in comparison to human, was make small point and sharp blades apart of hand axes.
And according to Spencer Wells, modern humans showed virtually no technological advancement from 1 million years ago to 65,000 years ago. I find that hard to believe but it’s what he claims:
https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/10/29/behavioral-modernity/
Btw Phil78, your own source agrees with me about cold climates requiring more intelligence:
By half a million years ago, some Homo erectus were able to move into the seasonally cold temperate zones of Asia and Europe. This migration was made possible by greater intelligence and new cultural technologies, probably including better hunting skills and the ability to create fire.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2.htm
Edits:
(again, I apologize for the edits here. I will definitely avoid doing that in the future.
The word “same” in the second correction below re: the Ulluzzian culture, somehow became the word “American”, not my intention and it seemed like a a fairly confusing/incoherent error requiring an edit—perhaps the effect of auto-correct on my misspelling of the word. Again, sorry about that.)
” I mentioned that the (technological) gap between the two species is seemingly not always so substantial, and there is some disagreement regarding its degree…”
“The S. European Ulluzzian culture of the same period is now attributed to sapiens.”
“I think another reason current for sub-saharan africans of the last twenty thousand years didnt achieve civilization is not because they are less intelligent. I think its because of their ‘small mindedness’ (too much focus on little things as compared to bigger things) and their inability to look at the big picture and also because of things like poor ‘impulse’ control. (All three major lobes of the brain need to be balanced to achieve all these in my opinion).”
Going to need some actual data on brain morphology to at leasr assume that’s how they think in actuality, not just in perception.
“Basically it is mostly due to ‘personality’ related reasons rather than ‘intelligence’ related reasons. If you look at most sub-saharan africans today (western and central/southern africans particularly) most of them have ‘bulging’ foreheads compared to other races.”
True.
“Meaning their frontal lobe maybe more developed as compared to other races.”
Not necessarily, because while many are “rounded” they are technically lower and narrower on average. To validate this, we would need to investigate the “wiring”.
“And this may have had come at the expense of a poor parietal and temporal lobe leading to poor impulse control and also why you also see most of them suck at high end academics while being more street smart than others ‘in general’. Parietal and temporal lobes are more logical, mathematical, science based. While frontal lobe is more behavior and planning/execution based.”
The Parietial lobe is used for sensory(sight, smell, hearing, etc) information computing and the temporal lobe for hearing, they are not directly involved in “mathematics”. If anything, the Frontal lobe would as it is involved in planning and organization.
“Ofcourse this doesnt mean they are better planners….. as non-behavioral planning and (partly) behavioural planning too depends on the P and T lobe also. And an unequal domination of F lobe over P and T or P & T over the F leads to weird personalities.”
You are going to have to again provide evidence. This sort of discussion isn;t the matter of “opinion” or shares the same matter of expressing it, the purpose is to establish of investogate facts on there validity.
“Wait writing this comment gave me a thought: What if AMH became what they are today because of mixing with neanderthals? Neanderthals as much as i remember have a very weak frontal lobe (as probably indicated by tiny sloping foreheads….which could have lead to the exact opposite behavior compared to current or ancient africans (who were lets assume for the sake of this discussion similar to ancestral AMH). Meaning the neanderthals must have excelled at inventing stuff caused by a strong parietal and temporal lobe and (which came) at the expense of the frontal lobe (the opposite scenario as compared to afrcians and possible african based AMH. ( PP said they were more technologically advanced than AMH until 70,000 years). But they must sucked at stuff like planning/ organizing and reading people/ and their craftiness etc (because of a weaker frontal lobe) compared to the AMH who migrated out of africa and with whom they came in contact with. And whom they lost against as a result.”
Not really, no based on genetics and traits of Africans and non-africans. Neanderthal mainly contributed some slight morphological phenotypes, perhaps depression, and their immune system. Technology wise they *may’ve* diffused traits of making clothes, but not through genetics.
BTW, modern West Africans would proxy Hunter gatherers as they’v alread experienced selection. Pygmies or Khoi san, behaviorally, or Non African Huntergathers would be better proxies.
“So AMH with their big frontal lobes migrated to europe and asia and then mixed with neanderthals and denisovans (who too may have had smaller small frontal lobes but bigger temporal/parietal lobes)……and this may have given birth to the AMH humans in asia/europe who were more ” lobally balanced” than the AMH in africa. Because they got best of both worlds?”
No, because that doesn’t account for independent selection in Modern eurasians
without admixture, the selection on West Africans sense then, or even the comparison of technology that doesn’t even widens untilpost neolithic.
“While the AMH who stayed in africa remained the same (because they didnt have the pleasure of mixing with neanderthals ) and consequently their achievements over time fell behind those who mixed with neanderthals. (I know i know there are studies saying that the neanderthal ad mixture was only in single digits…..like six percent or something…..but what if that 6% was ‘enough’).”
Not when when the few traits they did provide were not shown to be express in that regard. Plus Neanderthal Technology wasn’t better than Sapiens, who had more varied tools and methods as Jm8 highlighted.
” I say this because the AMH who migrated out of africa were more likely east africans and not west.”
And the mistake you continue to make further is that modern East Africans, due to admixture, do not represent ancient ones fully.
“East africans have slightly less bulging/bigger foreheads than west africans (meaning they may likely have had better T and P lobes than W.africans but less better T and P lobes than the neanderthals they would encounter in europe…..but they must have had better frontal lobes compared to neanderthals) so just 6% of neanderthal genes was all it took for them to gain better T and P lobes which may have lead them to dominate the neanderthals (as neanderthals may have had more weaker frontal lobes than the east african AMH) ”
You seem to be confused on OOA splits and timing of Neanderthal admixture. West Africans Diverged from East African at 80k. Those East Africans, who became cro magnon, mixed with archaic human in Eurasia at 40k-30k.
So no, neandertha; genes doesn’t explain it.
“and also lead them to dominate their west african AMH who were too ‘front’ loaded (so consequently may have had weaker T and P lobes).”
While West African ancesters did seem to mix with another Sapiens lineage, their cranial morphology isn;t known and, as I outlined, what your explanation suggest is unsupported in terms f brain function and the nature of development in Africa.
“I am drunk right now, so i may come across as incoherent or unclear. Am i making sense? 🙂”
You made little sense beyond the likelihood of diversification of brain functions and correlating that to cranian traits. Passed that, it unscientific.
“Btw Phil78, your own source agrees with me about cold climates requiring more intelligence”
Requiring intelligence, not causing, Pumpkin. Personally, I think the cold climate theory is complete garbage and agree with Philosopher that it is social selection that matters.
Requiring intelligence, not causing
Pointless distinction. If it required intelligence it would select for intelligence.
“So you have one set of environmental explanations to explain the low black IQ in the U.S… A second set to explain it worldwide. And then you have a bunch of historical arguments to explain the lack of black achievements all through history. All your arguments are ad hoc, meanwhile the cold winter theory helps explain all these things parsimoniously.”
“Ad hoc”? Whether or not an explanation can be generalized or specific in something as complex as population psychometrics isn’t what makes it valid, it’s the actual investigation to verify it.
So, I refer to my framework
1. Factors of social competition and climatic variability have been shown to influence CC expansion in hominids while temperature itself show little relation.
2. In modern global Iq distribution, parasite load explains more than temperature and latitude. On a national level, specific environmental effects or genetics could explain differences.
3. If the cause is genetic, cold winters can be ruled out.
.
“There’s a worldwide correlation between brain size and latitude and Cro-Magnon brain size increased as they entered freezing Europe.”
Yet IQ on global scale parasite load is shown to be correlated with brain size and Climatic variables, in general, show weaker association than Social competition proxies.
What this indicates most likely that competition with Neanderthals occurring could be an alternative explanation, like what Melo asserted in the past. It’s Also Worth noting is that Cro magons had longitudinal brain size increase, but apparantly my other study shows that this also occurred in other populations from that point of time onward.
It’s also worth noting that contemporaneous populations in Africa (Hofmeyr), representative of OOA people prior to expansion were of essentially similar brain size (1600 vs 1580)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Za0RAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT65&lpg=PT65&dq=cranial+capacity+of+hofmeyr+skull&source=bl&ots=USWZa85DOq&sig=wmc81G7qpMxeqNQtSaOufzFYn9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsouHrx8jWAhUDJCYKHf55DW8Q6AEIdDAP#v=onepage&q=cranial%20capacity%20of%20hofmeyr%20skull&f=false
.
“I don’t think you can make such strong claims about distributions based on such an incomplete fossil record, and I’m not talking about brain size, but truly rare mutations that enhanced brain efficiency or created complex language.”
Didn;t argued for brain efficiency selection to take place after the ice age man experienced? Before that, you always used Brain size as a proxy for intelligence.
regarding the fossil record, there are actually more asian erectus finds thatn African.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2002/03/20_daka.html
So that there population was always smaller is unfounded as far as i can find, it was only seemed to be established with Neanderthals. This actually makes sense because, as you said, Erectus didn;t go as far into the cold as Neanderthals.
“I agree that climatic variability increased intelligence in Africa, but how does that explain racial differences?”
Variability itself wasn’t supposed to explain racial differences, it was to actually pinpoint the actual change in brain size caused by climate.
“And according to Spencer Wells, modern humans showed virtually no technological advancement from 1 million years ago to 65,000 years ago. I find that hard to believe but it’s what he claims.”
That doesn’t tell us anything in regards to how they compared to Neanderthals.
Second, we’ve already had this talk about Behavioral modernity and technology.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/21/an-evil-experiment-in-behavioral-modernity/#comment-63433
“By half a million years ago, some Homo erectus were able to move into the seasonally cold temperate zones of Asia and Europe. This migration was made possible by greater intelligence and new cultural technologies, probably including better hunting skills and the ability to create fire.”
It says they were able to move INTO the cold by prior advancements in intelligence and technology. That doesn’t contradict my studies how brain size worked.
Second, even if it implied that they did increase intelligent as they went north, my source explains that as the continuous variability in lack presence that occurred in both Africa AND Asia.
Ad hoc”? Whether or not an explanation can be generalized or specific in something as complex as population psychometrics isn’t what makes it valid, it’s the actual investigation to verify it.
The value of a hypothesis depends on how many facts it can explain. Cold winters selecting for more intelligence helps explain 1) Low African IQ, 2) Low Black American IQ, 3) Low Australian aboriginal IQ, 4) Low South Asian IQ, 5) Low Papuan New Guinean IQ, 6) the fact that no black skinned population independently created a full civilization, 7) the fact that virtually every important invention of the last 20,000 years was made by a mongoloid or Caucasoid, 8) the fact that no black skinned nation has nukes, 9) the correlation between brain size and latitude, 10) the correlation between tool complexity and variety and latitude among contemporary hunter-gathers, 11) the correlation between latitude and IQ, 12) the correlation between skin colour and IQ, 13) the historic fact that most invasions have been from North to South 14) high Northeast Asian IQ
When one simple elegant theory can explain that many disparate facts, it’s far more compelling than your ad hoc just-so stories. That’s called Occam’s razor.
So, I refer to my framework
You don’t have a framework. Just a bunch of ad hoc theories. It’s me that has the framework.
1. Factors of social competition and climatic variability have been shown to influence CC expansion in hominids while temperature itself show little relation.
Useless theory in the context of race differences since you don’t connect these variables with race differences
2. In modern global Iq distribution, parasite load explains more than temperature and latitude.
Higher correlation != higher causal correlation. Parasite load is both a cause AND AN EFFECT of low IQ, so of course it’s going to correlate more than ancestral temperature which is merely a cause.
It’s also worth noting that contemporaneous populations in Africa (Hofmeyr), representative of OOA people prior to expansion were of essentially similar brain size (1600 vs 1580)
A sample of one individual proves nothing
1. Factors of social competition and climatic variability have been shown to influence CC expansion in hominids while temperature itself show little relation.
WRONG!
Humans grew bigger brains as the climate they lived in got cooler, according to researchers at the University at Albany, New York.
The researchers concluded that humans got brainier because they had to adapt to a more challenging environment. They base this assertion on a plot of cranial capacity of 109 fossilised human skulls against the corresponding paleontological record of two million years of changing climate.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/research_skulls/
“Let’s not get carried away. It’s just a spear that’s light enough to throw. The bow and arrow on the other hand is truly impressive.
I’m not getting carried away. It is less complex than the bow of course, but it is a meaningful difference from the trusting spear and the style of hunting it enabled, and it has particular benefits and characteristics as I mentioned (and as the abstract also posits).
It is not simply insignificantly different as you describe (the archaeologists would disagree with you). And if the difference were so unimportant it likely would been employed by earlier hominids that used hafted spears (as heidelbergensis did by about 600,000-700,000 bc) or by neanderthals.
Also it is not only the javelin, in that is in evidence before the bow, but also the atlatl (or woomera as it’s called in Australia) and compound fishing harpoon—which I mentioned before (e.g. at Katanda and Pinnacle point. both before 70 ka, rather closer to 90-100 ka), nothing like which were used by neanderthals).
“I would say the invention of the bow and arrow (70,000 years ago) is what allowed modern humans to replace other hominins, especially since its invention date corresponds with the Out of Africa expansion”
Possibly, though bow would not have been possible without earlier projectiles (it likely developed from precursors like the javelin—the most ancient—and perhaps the atlatl which likely came some time after the javelin but perhaps before the bow—though the second of which/atlatl is in many respects not less advanced/effective than the bow though it has trade offs). It is possible that the bow was lost later and then invented more than once by sapiens both in and out of Africa and that more common/widespread projectile at the time (and place: that being East Africa) of the OOA (and before among early African sapiens) might have been the atlatl/woomera (which was more common among upper paleolithic Europeans, Australian Aborigines and some Amerindian groups). (some of the ca 270 ka bc weapons at Gademotta are suspected of being atlatl points but is is not confirmed—only that they were projectiles, and their status as javelins—for the most part at least—is thought more likely from the data).
The evidence shows that early sapiens used had a variety of tool types adapted to the various environments they occupied within Africa, some more sophisticated than others (and later outside Africa). With various innovations appearing in different early African sapiens cultures (from South Africa, Ethiopia, E. Central Africa, the N. African Aterian to the Lupemban and Sangoan cultures of Central Africa and parts of the E. Africa—which presents some evidence for the use of the adze, and other compound tools otherwise not seen until later. And the overall impression is one of significant cultural and technological adaptability.
“At the moment I can’t find a scholarly source claiming that Neanderthals were more advanced before 70 K years ago, but there is evidence modern humans were very technologically primitive before that time. I document the evidence here:”
The opinion of Klein (and Wells, at that time) as expressed in those lectures is in many respects outdated and has been considered so for some time by most scholars (the post and claims therein are also criticized with counter evidence in the comments by both MeLo and myself—some of which I have cited again here. Behavioral modernity did not suddenly appear in 70 ka (let alone 55 ka), but predates that period.significantly (some of the evidence, some of which is relatively recent, admittedly may have not been available to Klein at the time and Wells.). They were not as primitive as previously thought.
But it seems Klein (or his hypothesis) at this point had become somewhat marginal in the area/field of early sapiens cultural evolution/behavioral modernity as his ideas in that area have been disconfirmed and evidence of earlier modernity has increased, with the gradual appearance of modern behaviors before that.
Even if it did begin circa 70 ka bc, it would not be owed to cold weather or Eurasians (nor would Klein and his camp have contended that), as the full late stone age (the African equivalent of the full Upper Paleolithic package) appears Africa not later than in Eurasia, (70 ka being before such appeared in or were brought to Eurasia).
“The value of a hypothesis depends on how many facts it can explain. Cold winters selecting for more intelligence helps explain 1) Low African IQ, 2) Low Black American IQ, 3) Low Australian aboriginal IQ, 4) Low South Asian IQ, 5) Low Papuan New Guinean IQ, 6) the fact that no black skinned population independently created a full civilization, 7) the fact that virtually every important invention of the last 20,000 years was made by a mongoloid or Caucasoid, 8) the fact that no black skinned nation has nukes, 9) the correlation between brain size and latitude, 10) the correlation between tool complexity and variety and latitude among contemporary hunter-gathers,
When one simple elegant theory can explain that many disparate facts, it’s far more compelling than your ad hoc just-so stories. That’s called Occam’s razor.”
Occram Razor isn’t based on simply preferring the simpler explanation over the more complex explanation, it’s when the more complex explanation relies on more assumptions.
My explanation actually uses actual data that trumps your simplistic explanation.
“You don’t have a framework. Just a bunch of ad hoc theories. It’s me that has the framework.”
Ad hoc theories? I used studies two support my three points, those points being that-
“1. Factors of social competition and climatic variability have been shown to influence CC expansion in hominids while temperature itself show little relation.
2. In modern global Iq distribution, parasite load explains more than temperature and latitude. On a national level, specific environmental effects or genetics could explain differences.
3. If the cause is genetic, cold winters can be ruled out.”
It is far from or complicated “theories” as it doesn’t rule out genetic differences, but rather it rules out a mechanism, and in comparison to yours, my studies actually investigate associations and compare them to narrow down a likely causality.
“Useless theory in the context of race differences since you don’t connect these variables with race differences.”
Early into this discussion, I prpposed difference in group competition related to changes in their environments since their separation.
It’s far from useless knowing how it relates to the same dynamics in human evolution prior.
“2. In modern global Iq distribution, parasite load explains more than temperature and latitude.”
“Higher correlation != higher causal correlation. Parasite load is both a cause AND AN EFFECT of low IQ, so of course it’s going to correlate more than ancestral temperature which is merely a cause.”
Parasite load is dependent on the environment’s ability to host parasites, how does it result from low IQ.
“A sample of one individual proves nothing”
“WRONG!”
Humans grew bigger brains as the climate they lived in got cooler, according to researchers at the University at Albany, New York.
The researchers concluded that humans got brainier because they had to adapt to a more challenging environment. They base this assertion on a plot of cranial capacity of 109 fossilised human skulls against the corresponding paleontological record of two million years of changing climate.”
Wow, you are dishonest aren’t you? See the rest of the article.
“The researchers concluded that humans got brainier because they had to adapt to a more challenging environment. They base this assertion on a plot of cranial capacity of 109 fossilised human skulls against the corresponding paleontological record of two million years of changing climate.
As well as a relationship between a cooling earth and growing skulls, the researchers report that where the skulls were found matters, too, because the further you get from the Equator, the more varied the weather becomes.
Gordon G Gallup Jr, a professor of evolutionary psychology at the university, and co-author of the work along with graduate student Jessica Ash, commented: “*It became clear that seasonal variation in climate may also have been an important selective force behind the evolution of human cranial capacity. Specifically, we found that as the distance from the Equator increased, north or south, so did brain size.*”
*Lower temperatures and seasonal variations threw up new challenges for the early human, such as fluctuations in the availability of food and the need for fire and clothes to keep warm, the researchers argue. More co-operation would have been needed to find, preserve, and store food; and the people would have needed more complex tools. Along with that, more intricate social structures would have evolved, which in turn would have required more grey matter.
The researchers suggest that having to adapt to the impact of lower temperatures could account for as much as 50 per cent of the increase in the size of our skulls.
The researchers don’t mention whether or not the extra small human skull found on the island of Flores was included in the sample. ®”
Again, this investigates climate variability which was found to occur in distances away from the equator, and my study use their data as well when computing their own. It also includes pott’s data as well, so climatic variability is replicated.
“These findings are consistent with the corresponding hypothesis that ecological
novelty and harsher and more variable climates in latitudes north and south of the
equator resulted in pressures that contributed to the increase hominid brain size (Ash
and Gallup 2007; Kanazawa 2008; Potts 1998; Vrba 1974). ”
Click to access Bailey-Geary-2009-Human-Nature.pdf
What it mentions further.
“In keeping with Ash and Gallup (2007), variation in paleoclimate—as indicated by
the standard deviation in δ18O levels in the 200,000 years prior to the date of the
hominid fossil—did predict unique variance in cranial capacity in multivariate
analyses that controlled for our population density (discussed below) and other
variables. The similar curvilinear relationship between twentieth-century temperature
variation and CC is highly consistent with this finding. However, the unique effect
of population density remained significant and was several times larger than that of
the δ18O variable. This is not to say that climatic variation was not a potentially
important selective factor during hominid evolution, but rather it does not appear to
have been the primary selective pressure for hominid brain evolution, at least not in
the past 1.9 million years. Independent of population density, δ18O variation predicts a
parabolic effect in CC. Moving from highly stable paleoclimates (2.5 SD below the
δ18O mean) to more variable climates is associated with increasing CC, but this trend
reverses with climates less stable than the average paleoclimate.”
With climatic variables controlled for population desnity, here’s what they found,
“In any case, the latitude, temperature, parasite, and paleoclimatic variables leave
much of the variation in cranial capacity unexplained, once our measure of
population density is controlled. The measure is conceptually and statistically
simple. We assume that migration of hominids from central Africa was due to
expanding populations and a corresponding reduction in the carrying capacity of the
surrounding ecology. To capture expansion, our measure counts the number of
fossils outside of the central area in which the oldest specimen in our sample was
found. For each fossil, the count includes all other fossils found before or at the time
of the existence of this individual. It might be argued that climatic or ecological
changes and not an increase in population triggered migration. However, if this were
the case, then we would not expect fossils to be found in this central region
throughout the time span of our study, but Fig. 1 (panel 1) shows that many of our
ancestors remained in this region while others migrated. It is possible that hominids
migrated from this central region and then returned after experiencing an increase in
CC. However, genetic analyses of extant human populations suggest that the pattern
in the data we analyzed is not likely due to large-scale return of populations that
migrated from the equator (Li et al. 2008), but rather hominids in all areas of the
world showed increases in CC.”
Occram Razor isn’t based on simply preferring the simpler explanation over the more complex explanation, it’s when the more complex explanation relies on more assumptions.
It’s based on the ideas that “plurality should not be assumed without necessity” and that “it is needless to do more when less will suffice.” So when you have one explanation for why cold climate races have high IQs in America, a second explanation for why cold climate races have high IQs worldwide, and a third explanation for why cold climate races achieved more civilization, you require three explanations for that which can be explained by one: cold winters selected for more IQ
Early into this discussion, I prpposed difference in group competition related to changes in their environments since their separation.
Such as?
Parasite load is dependent on the environment’s ability to host parasites, how does it result from low IQ.
Because high IQ countries have better sanitation and hygiene which reduces parasite load.
Wow, you are dishonest aren’t you? See the rest of the article.
Did you not read this part? Cold climate clearly selected for more intelligence:
Lower temperatures and seasonal variations threw up new challenges for the early human, such as fluctuations in the availability of food and the need for fire and clothes to keep warm, the researchers argue. More co-operation would have been needed to find, preserve, and store food; and the people would have needed more complex tools. Along with that, more intricate social structures would have evolved, which in turn would have required more grey matter.
Again, this investigates climate variability which was found to occur in distances away from the equator, and my study use their data as well when computing their own. It also includes pott’s data as well, so climatic variability is replicated.
So you admit that cold climates (distant from equator) select for more intelligence, but you think it’s because cold climates are more variable and not because they’re cold?
Also, most of your data comes from Africa so it’s amazing they found any correlation between brain size and climate when the range of climates are so restricted. More relevant is the correlation between brain size and climate in global populations, once again replicating the brain size climate correlation:
Click to access TimeMach1984.pdf
This is not to say that climatic variation was not a potentially
important selective factor during hominid evolution, but rather it does not appear to
have been the primary selective pressure for hominid brain evolution,
Well of course not. We evolved in Africa where the climate was warm. The question is whether cold climate selected for intelligence once we left Africa and were exposed to the ice age.
These findings are consistent with the corresponding hypothesis that ecological novelty and harsher and more variable climates in latitudes north and south of the equator resulted in pressures that contributed to the increase hominid brain size
What’s more ecologically novel than migrating to the freezing cold after evolving millions of years in Africa? In any event, you’re now agreeing that distance from the equator selected for more brains, you’re just quibbling about the precise mechanism.
“It’s based on the ideas that “plurality should not be assumed without necessity” and that “it is needless to do more when less will suffice.” So when you have one explanation for why cold climate races have high IQs in America, a second explanation for why cold climate races have high IQs worldwide, and a third explanation for why cold climate races achieved more civilization, you require three explanations for that which can be explained by one: cold winters selected for more IQ”
More context of “Occram’s razor”
“For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]”
As I said before, simpler explanations were preferred during PRETEST conditions. My study tested Temperature/latitude and population density, the latter out.
Second, despite the simplicity of your assertions, it’s simple. In the place of “cold winter selection” new social competition in Eurasia like went on to new cycles of population replacement, such as expansion of farmers, etc, following the increased new population of Eurasia.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.3998/jar.0521004.0063.401
This one covers it applying to the Americas.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211004411
“Such as?”
Opportunities during different ecological changes, like the end of the Wet Sahara phases in Africa, the Warming of Eurasia and migrations leading to comparative;y higher population densities, also see above studies.
“Did you not read this part? Cold climate clearly selected for more intelligence:”
And see how MY study brings it up in regards to climate variability and similar results, though that study diminished the role of temperature based on comparison controls and a larger sample.
“So you admit that cold climates (distant from equator) select for more intelligence, but you think it’s because cold climates are more variable and not because they’re cold?”
Variability was what was replicated, and with population density accounted for, Temperature explained little.
“Also, most of your data comes from Africa so it’s amazing they found any correlation between brain size and climate when the range of climates are so restricted. More relevant is the correlation between brain size and climate in global populations, once again replicating the brain size climate correlation:”
If you recall Pott’s theory, or read my sources, you would know climate wasn’t restricted.
Second, the study itself said that the variation was explained in part by climate, referring mainly to the “breadth” of the skull resulting in more volume. The qualities of the frontal lobe, the most changed part of the brain in human evolution, would be the main trait to observe in regards to intelligence differences. Height as the main metric in evolution that causes changes in frontal lobe morphology.
Thus, if social competition did drive human cranial capacity in evolution which saw change in human ability, then it ought to explain diversification and it shows in the studies I gave.
“Well of course not. We evolved in Africa where the climate was warm. The question is whether cold climate selected for intelligence once we left Africa and were exposed to the ice age.”
See my links above on competition during humans’ expansion through eurasia.
“What’s more ecologically novel than migrating to the freezing cold after evolving millions of years in Africa? In any event, you’re now agreeing that distance from the equator selected for more brains, you’re just quibbling about the precise mechanism.”
It’s not “quibble” because Latitude, “Cold”, and climate variation are three different points in the argument.
I don’t deny the N-S IQ correlation, it was always about the mechanism. Multiple studies, now with evidence of it occurring in Eurasia explains how social competition and climatic variability were more relevant to human evolution than temperature based on my study and explains why people observe the phenomenon with temperature in ancient migrations from the equator, attributing it more towards social competition.
The differences of what mechanism causes it would suggest a different outline in terms of the rates of differences between Africans and Non-Africans in terms of what occurred in each location and why?
“Also why do primates form groups in the first place? Cause they’re not smart enough to adapt as individuals and must pool their intelligence. So group size correlates with brain size for two reasons
1) The external environment is so cognitively demanding only a large group can survive it
2) The social skills needed to adapt to the group are themselves cognitively demanding”
The environment as a variable in any way towards adaptations is a given.
Second, despite the simplicity of your assertions, it’s simple. In the place of “cold winter selection” new social competition in Eurasia like went on to new cycles of population replacement, such as expansion of farmers, etc, following the increased new population of Eurasia.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.3998/jar.0521004.0063.401http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.3998/jar.0521004.0063.401
This one covers it applying to the Americas.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211004411http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211004411
Not sure what you think those 2 studies prove.
The first one says:
A new hypothesis explains Middle vs. Upper Paleolithic behavioral differences among Levantine Late Pleistocene Homo sapiens as the result of intensified intraspecific competition among African Homo sapiens populations who dispersed into the Levant after a period of rapid climate change, 50-45 kya.
They’re saying that Upper Paleolithic Levantine people were smarter than Middle Paleolithic Levantine people because the latter had more intraspecific competition in Africa, but how do selection pressures in Africa explain IQ differences between Africans and non-Africans? They don’t. So what’s the relevance of the link? Also, intraspecific competition fits nicely with cold winter theory because in cold winters, there are fewer resources, thus more competition between individuals and tribes.
The second study says:
Only intra- and inter-group behavioral changes of forager bands, accompanied by technological innovations and/or inventions, as well as efficient forms of systematic teaching of survival skills, facilitated the colonization of larger areas, whether empty or already inhabited. Besides Eurasia and Sahul, all of the above enabled the crossing of the ecological “northern boundary”
This is consistent with cold winter theory because cold climates requires more technological innovation, survival skills, and the ability to teach them.
“It’s just a spear that’s light enough to throw. ”
Overall weight is not the only difference. In certain respects javelins are likely to require more consideration: one aspect/concern would be weight distribution (e.g of the point in relation to the shaft, and the shape of the former both for moving while in the air and for wounding the target—both being considered) and the need to remain stable while airborne and to be conveyed a certain distance to allow for an effective throwing range (depending on how far it is meant to travel—which might depend on various things; like the type of game targeted). It (weigh distribution)—javelins of some types would tend to have longer shafts, others not but rather the reverse. It does not matter so much whether thrusting spears are tip-heavy for example—though the wounding effectiveness of the tip does obviously does matter—since are delivered entirely by hand).
Jm8, how do you explain this article which implies modern humans were NEVER more advanced than Neanderthals alive at the same time (not even after 70,000 years ago)?:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists
No the main argument against coldwinter theory is the fact that most encephalization occurred in Africa. It wouldn’t make sense to infer inyelligence (beyond simply identifying threshholds) from technological innovation when group size has a higher correlation with Anthropic brain size. Meaning primates with bigger social groups are more likely to have bigger brains than primates with more technology. Meaning Eurasians aren’t more intelligent because of ecological pressures they’re more intelligent because of the new social pressures introduced within a low resource but high competition territory. They had to compensate group size and density with fission fusion and high mobility increasing encounter rate allowing innovation to flourish.
So much I want to respond to, such little time, I’ll be back later to give my two cents also pumpkin new evidence has emerged that Neanderthals were not low in number and in fact they were flourishing when we arrived. Honestly it’s laughable that hi think brain size trippled in 7- 5 million years from mostly luck.
Group size is the highest correlate to intelligence within primates, including humans. It is higher than the correlation of temparture.
Group size is the highest correlate to intelligence within primates, including humans. It is higher than the correlation of temparture.
That’s cause most primates live in Africa where extreme cold is not a selection pressure.
Also why do primates form groups in the first place? Cause they’re not smart enough to adapt as individuals and must pool their intelligence. So group size correlates with brain size for two reasons:
1) The external environment is so cognitively demanding only a large group can survive it
2) The social skills needed to adapt to the group are themselves cognitively demanding
Damn Melo, took you long enough. XD
Felt like it was just me and jm8.
Phil, sorry the only access I have to WordPress right now is my phone which is much more time consuming to types link sources with than my laptop
Forgive me this comment will probably have a lot of grammatical errors
Pumpkin,
“That’s cause most primates live in Africa where extreme cold is not a selection pressure.”
Temperature is not a “with or without” type of measurement, it is a continuum meaning if temparture correlates so well as to be causal then you should see apes more intelligent than their counterparts who live in slightly hotter(by a couple of degrees) climates which isn’t the case.
“Cause they’re not smart enough to adapt as individuals and must pool their intelligence. ”
Actually it’s because of predation risk which has a much higher biodemographic effect than ecological factors, especially within primates which means instrumental(technological) intelligence is simply a by product solution to the energetic and nutritional constraints of a large brain. Also predation isnt just a risk from other species like lions it’s also a risk when you run into other humans, the murder rate was much higher in archaic times .cough cough* competition. Cough cough*
science/article/pii/S0304380009008011?via%3Dihub
Sorry pumpkin I posted an incomplete source
Also Phil I’ll be back to respond to some of you and Jm8’s posts.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380009008011?via%3Dihub
“It is possible that the bow was lost later and then invented more than once by sapiens both in and out of Africa and that more common/widespread projectile at the time (and place: that being East Africa) of the OOA (and before among early African sapiens) might have been the atlatl/woomera”
It more likely was not lost so much but rather that at the time the atlatl/woomera was more common in East Africa, and the bow (later also invented elsewhere) was more common in then Southern Africa (and not long after in West and Central Africa as well) and continued to be so there.
PP
So absence of evidence = evidence of absence?
They basically claim “lack off proof” despite my link on the cranial differences between Homo Sapiens and Neanderhtal and there very different tool kits.
And again, you expect races to be different in intelligence (not denying that evidence doesn’t exist) but you expect even more isolated and morphologically different species to be equal?
They basically claim “lack off proof” despite my link on the cranial differences between Homo Sapiens and Neanderhtal and there very different tool kits.
Well obviously they think your evidence is low quality and the peer reviewed academic journal that published them agrees
I’m not saying the study is right, i just found it interesting that they reach such different conclusions from you and Jm8.
And again, you expect races to be different in intelligence (not denying that evidence doesn’t exist) but you expect even more isolated and morphologically different species to be equal?
I don’t expect it but it’s plausible. Blacks and whites are virtually equal on some traits too (i.e. height) so there’s no rule that separated populations must be unequal on everything
Neanderthals and moderns were equal on absolute brain size though moderns have larger brains for their body size and eyeball size
“Well obviously they think your evidence is low quality and the peer reviewed academic journal that published them agrees
I’m not saying the study is right, I just found it interesting that they reach such different conclusions from you and Jm8.”
See here regarding cognition and it’s dismissiveness in their data
http://www.christopherseddon.com/2014/05/comment-on-villa-roebroeks-2014.html
“I don’t expect it but it’s plausible. Blacks and whites are virtually equal on some traits too (i.e. height) so there’s no rule that separated populations must be unequal on everything.”
That’s reaching and you know it. They are clearly different in regards to the shape of their skulls and environmental challenges. Hell, despite claiming no differences in social networks, population density was said to be a reason of demise in the paper.
Therefore, with weaker cranial traits for social capacity, anatomical differences in language (your first link) and technological differences (your paper relied on “sophistication” and specialization rather than tools by use as they lack to mention projectiles beyond making bladelets under diffusion from Humans).
“The techniques and methods of bladelet making in the Mousterian are different from those of the Protoaurignacian, just as the kind of possible symbolic objects are also different (use of raptor claws; on perforated or grooved animal teeth (see Text SI, Hypothesis 1). Perhaps the nature of the contacts should be seen in terms of diffusion of ideas rather than as face to face interaction and the copying of specific objects [122]. The occurrence of Dufour bladelets (often used as projectile elements in the Aurignacian and the Protoaurignacian) with very specific techniques of manufacture in the Châtelperronian of Quincay is interpreted in a similar way, as a form of low-degree social interaction between Neandertals and modern humans [123].”
My comment above that mention Stringer’s data on cranial differences being glossed over also support differences in innovation along with other faculties.
They were, as you would put it, “capable” but didn’t necessarily “invent” these traits.
Regard AMH in the Levant possibly being “outmatched” by Neanderthal Cognition, it was actually because of a climate shift in the area favoring neanderthal Physiology.
“Neandertal remains have been found nearby at Kebara Cave that date to 61,000-48,000 years ago,[6] but it has been hypothesised that the Skhul/Qafzeh hominids had died out by 80,000 years ago because of drying and cooling conditions, favouring a return of a Neandertal population[7] “.
To PP:
“Jm8, how do you explain this article which implies modern humans were NEVER more advanced than Neanderthals alive at the same time (not even after 70,000 years ago)?”
Few researchers would agree with that, and theirs (the researchers referenced in the link) is a minority opinion (there is of course though, as I said, disagreement on the extent of the gap between the species). Some evidence of an edge in favor of sapiens begins earlier, but the evidence is stronger by 70 ka and certainly after (with for example: the use of the arrow, worked shell beads as at Enkapune ya Muto Tanzania at 70 ka bc, and paints at Blombos which are earlier at 100 ka bc—not simply ground mineral pigments which neanderthals and some late heidelbergensis in Africa seem to have had). And the idea that they were not more advanced after 70 ka is very doubtful to say the least. There are clearly likely advantageous technologies used by sapiens that were not possessed by neanderthals or were rare. The benefit provided by projectiles is likely (possibly enhanced by environmental changes in Eurasia around the time of sapiens arrival involving a reduction of forrest that made distance/open terrain hunting more advantageous.). And those created by African sapiens are varied (from javelins to harpoons to bows) and appear in multiple regions, are not seen in the neanderthal record in any period. It is true that some neanderthal tool kits in certain regions/areas do show some gradual improvement leading up to the arrival of sapiens.
“I would say the invention of the bow and arrow (70,000 years ago) is what allowed modern humans to replace other hominins,”
Also there is some evidence of (but likely somewhat smaller ones) out of Africa migrations of early sapiens prior to 70 k (esp. around 90-80 ka bc) to parts of the Middle East, parts of China and South Asia (whether they have living descendants is unknown—it is suggested that some oceanic populations like Papuans/Australians may come partly from an earlier sapiens wave but other evidence suggest that they come mostly from the same OOA wave as other Eurasians—and some may have hybridized with local hominids or even absorbed them in some regions, likely in part due to an edge possessed by sapiens over Asian erectus and Asian heidelbergensis/denisovan. The Altai neanderthals were found (or indicated from genetic evidence) to have what appeared to be some early sapiens admixture from an old circa 100 ka bc era migration).
The linked study/argument partly relies on “transitional industries” in Europe(like the Bohunician, Bachokirian, Szeletian and Streletskayan, and Châtelperronian), which occur at the beginning of sapiens migration into Europe (when sapiens cultural influence direct of indirect) and thus their implications are ambiguous. The Chatelperronian is attributed to neanderthals but forms at that ambiguous period of contact, and the others are of unknown authorship—some could be sapiens as the Ulluzzian turned out to be (perhaps sapiens/neanderthal hybrids could also have been involved in some of them), or could be neanderthal.
As the study says “However, the conflicting hypotheses of acculturation versus independent invention persist, ”
It has been known that he gap between the species was often not and not in all respects large or substantial, and modern-like behavioral features were starting to form in some neanderthal groups (and that neanderthals very likely had language of a syntactical variety). It is not (no longer) claimed that they lacked language. Symbolism though, does seem to be less comon in the neanderthal record. And a significant amount that exists is from the aforementioned transitional industries, with their ambiguous origins.
The claim of worked bone tools by neanderthals comes mainly from the recently found lessoirs, which also appear near the time of sapiens arrival (and otherwise are mostly absent from neanderthal sites. Their genesis is not certain: they may be a unique neanderthal invention, be acquired from early Eurasian sapiens, or independently invented by both species.). But worked/specialized bone tools (like awls, arrow points, harpoons and other ambiguous objects) are more common in the African MSA.
“Perhaps the nature of the contacts should be seen in terms of diffusion of ideas rather than as face to face interaction and the copying of specific objects [122]. The occurrence of Dufour bladelets …..is interpreted in a similar way, as a form of low-degree social interaction between Neandertals and modern humans ”
Some convergence technological with independent invention by neanderthals (of sapiens-like technologies toward the end of their time-range—possibly sometimes, but not always, also with some sapiens indirect influence later around when sapiens began to arrive—) is also possible (and in some cases likely).
“The results of our study imply that single-factor explanations for the disappearance of the Neandertals are not warranted any more,”
I would agree.
Neanderthals were probably not replaced by sapiens solely or primarily due to the latter’s superiority is (and I don’t/wouldn’t argue that), though I suspect (including technologies that neanderthals did not have, or had rarely) it was a factor, but along with other significant factors; climatological ones and differences/imbalances in respective population sizes.
“Neanderthals and moderns were equal on absolute brain size though moderns have larger brains for their body size and eyeball size”
Moderns also had larger frontal lobes and prefrontal cortexes as mentioned—areas important in higher-order cognition.
Re: the lissoirs
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14186.full
“more comparable to assemblages from southwest Asia made by modern humans (19, 43) have such poor bone preservation that neither human fossils nor bone tools are known, and thus their influence on Neandertals cannot be evaluated. Thus, it remains to be determined whether MTA lissoirs are evidence that modern humans influenced Neandertals earlier and longer than previously suggested, whether these lissoirs represent independent invention and convergence, or whether, perhaps this time, Neandertals may have influenced subsequent Upper Paleolithic modern human populations in western Europe where lissoirs are common.”
And the below excerpt I quoted in my last post refers of course to the formation of certain later neanderthal (and/or ambiguous) industries in Europe:
“Perhaps the nature of the contacts should be seen in terms of diffusion of ideas rather than as face to face interaction and the copying of specific objects [122]. The occurrence of Dufour bladelets …..is interpreted in a similar way, as a form of low-degree social interaction between Neandertals and modern humans ”
There is actually some doubt that neanderthals possessed fully syntactical language (or language as structurally complex as sapiens—(which is consistent among other things, with their differing brain structures and smaller social groups, and perhaps their vocal anatomy with its more restricted larynx), but of course, some form of language is very likely.
I think Neanderthals were probably not replaced by sapiens solely or necessarily primarily due to the latter’s superiority though I suspect it was a factor along with other significant factors; like climatological ones and differences/imbalances in respective population sizes—though population size/density and social network size wasin early groups related to intelligence and the ability to exploit the environment.”
“Not sure what you think those 2 studies prove.
The first one says:
A new hypothesis explains Middle vs. Upper Paleolithic behavioral differences among Levantine Late Pleistocene Homo sapiens as the result of intensified intraspecific competition among African Homo sapiens populations who dispersed into the Levant after a period of rapid climate change, 50-45 kya.
They’re saying that Upper Paleolithic Levantine people were smarter than Middle Paleolithic Levantine people because the latter had more intraspecific competition in Africa, but how do selection pressures in Africa explain IQ differences between Africans and non-Africans? They don’t. So what’s the relevance of the link?”
Yes, it does. AT least as well as you constant references to cromagnons being at the same range. Diversification in behavior among migrating Homo Saoiens by competition is consistent with the observed long time trend of social competition driving human evolution.
“Also, intraspecific competition fits nicely with cold winter theory because in cold winters, there are fewer resources, thus more competition between individuals and tribes.”
Actually the conclusion attributes the competition to stem fron NE african competition in hyper-aridity prior to dispersing into the Levant in 45k
See here, file:///home/chronos/u-847e6ebc289f3c7306363eddb5674a7c1bf47af1/Downloads/John_J._Shea_2007_Behavioral_Differences.pdf
That’s consistent with the H. erectus trend in lake appearance and scarcity and it’s effect on brain size in and out of Africa.
“The second study says:
Only intra- and inter-group behavioral changes of forager bands, accompanied by technological innovations and/or inventions, as well as efficient forms of systematic teaching of survival skills, facilitated the colonization of larger areas, whether empty or already inhabited. Besides Eurasia and Sahul, all of the above enabled the crossing of the ecological “northern boundary”
This is consistent with cold winter theory because cold climates requires more technological innovation, survival skills, and the ability to teach them.”
Except the factor here isthat social competition from expanding into new lands was the the actual relationship, not the climate of the land itself.
“It appears that the differences observed while studying the various dispersal events could be explained not only through different environmental circum-stances, particular to each observed migration, but also, and perhaps at certain points mainly, through the social characteristics of each migrating group.”
This was treated as a different factor from the climate itself, had you use the whole of the abstract.
“Following Pleistocene road signs of human dispersals across Eurasia. Bar-Yosefa,*, A. Belfer-CohenbaDepartment of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USAbInstitute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel article info article history:Available online 16 August 2011abstractThe present paper is an endeavor to summarize the evidence for various dispersals of hominins into Eurasia, while avoiding the commonly held assumptions that these events, whether short or continuous, were triggered by climatic conditions or were part of dispersals of other mammals.”
I dunno. I think this better. But its music. Each to their own. I just can’t understand how Mac is not a worldwide phenomenon. I haven’t heard this much melody in music since at least the 90s.
Yes he’s good.
What’s his ethnicity and schiz-to-autist ratio???
I used to live beside the beach about a year ago and would listen to Mac a lot. i was at the depth of my problems and Mac was very resonant with me. My housemate started playing it one day and I thought – this is genius.
Perfect song for my time in London. Just perfect.
london was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and as a result it became the richest and most powerful country on earth. its empire covered 1/4 of the surface of the earth.
what happened?
now blighty makes nothing. it’s poor. it just does finance.
maybe if the holocaust had extended to blighty things would be different.
Football is a simple game. Twenty-two men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win.
britain was the birthplace…
actually it was london with henry maudslay, the most important person you’ve never heard of.
What do you all make of the kneeling thing. I think trump has picked an issue that will jack up his popularity to Hitler like levels. Honestly, what a terrible issue for the jews to fight the culture wars over. Trump is smart in the other sense of knowing when a social trend is ripe for ignition. That nfl players should be fired comment was right in the midst of the immigration negotiations.
Jesus this kneeling thing looks like its opened the floodgates even to normies. I bet steve sailer is having record views.
Sailer is in good form lately. Very funny.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7666
Other possible comparison is
Do african or tropical hunter gatherers don’t need visual memory to memorize details of their environments**
Likely, but…
dense tropical forests may limit the size of distance of hunter’s explorations
and lack of water may also have same result in savannah.
while potable water is abundant in arctic enviroments as well food/fish and no have any natural limitations.
Bigger the distance of hunter explorations, more visual memory they need = selection [and retention] for bigger visual memory.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/00049538608259009/abstract
http://www.start-a-new-life-in-australia.com/aboriginal-food.html
http://brighterbrains.org/
Pill,
fo u
My favourite song.
sailer has a piece on jewish hypocrisy today. he’s woke.
of course the best national anthem is uruguay’s.
sounds a little like die stem.
It sounds to me a like a typical Khazazksthan/Georgia/Armenia type folk song if Im honest.
And comparing only living hunter gatherers groups the smartest ones via IQ tests [general IQ] are those who live in the arctic and sorrounds.
Inuits have the avg IQ of all humanity. Interestingly Maoris, who have evolved in subtropical places also scores above 90.
“I still think Jewish intelligence is a fraud however, until I see a study controlling Jewish and White intelligence for culture.”
Jewish having relatively to white 25 times more nobel prizes in physics/medicine/math (field)/economy (bank of sweden) is hard data as it has been discussed here.
An amusing (kind of) counter-intuitive fact is that the lower the average IQ of those prize recipients is, the higher the difference among average jewish IQ (or sd) and white IQ must be to explain it. If those scientifs average IQ is 150, jewish must have 15 IQ points more than whites, but if it’s 145, they must have 19 points to fully explain it.
Then, thinking about the causes, I see 3
– Genetic interest and cheating (I guess it’s a minor factor).
– Jewish working harder or having a cultural or gentetic preference for abstract work (average factor, that’s crystallized intelligence). Chess is a good example of that.
– Jewish having more creativity than white (and much more than asian) at each IQ level (it’s probably that) because creativity, above 120 IQ, doesn’t correlates with iq (fact) but correlates with an archaic mind (hypothesis). It could be tested objectively.
What do you mean archaic mind?
“Jewish having relatively to white 25 times more nobel prizes in physics/medicine/math (field)/economy (bank of sweden) is hard data as it has been discussed here.”
Jews control the Nobel prize. They also control universities. That is nepotism, not a study. The Nobel prize is ridiculously corrupt.
The peace prize is a separate thing and is also the biggest joke I’ve ever seen.
Obama peace prize after dropping 30,000 bombs on Libya in 2016 alone?
Hmmm. Western countries really are brain washed. Walking around sometimes I feel as if everyone born in the West is part of a gigantic cult and high-iq immigrants are the only ones awake, due to not having been exposed to it from birth.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fiameviltebow.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2F8SaraCarbonero.jpg&f=1
Outlandishly good looking.
I would consent to her raping me.
what?
you’re gay too?
not just jewish?
she looks like a frog.
^^ I’m sorry, but youre taste in women disqualifies you from speaking on this matter.
i prefer women who look like mammals. i especially prefer those who look like humans.
Philosopher likes those Jew chicks I see
You’d think Nordic/Whites would like blue-eyed blondes, but they instead seem to unanimously like tan skin and dark hair/eyes
Its kind of amusing people can see HBD at the olympics and kind of tacitly accept it. But if you start saying certain people from around the world have different IQs by which they mean really mean, personalities, then the shit is in the fan.
IQ is a part of a persons personality. You couldn’t jack up Dennis Rodmans IQ and not change him completely to the point he wouldn’t be Dennis Rodman anymore.
i forget who it was. someone recently. someone in the mainstream media. she made the point that the loss of privilege can seem like discrimination, even if it isn’t.
Sailer also made a great point in his Taki article how sports that have an endurance aspect tend to be more white frendly. I forgot how stop start american football is. American football is a lot more like chess than rugby. In rugby, the vast majority of the SA team is white even with affirmative action and an AA coach put there. If rugby has 15 minute breaks every 10 minutes, there would be more blacks.
yes. rugby requires being huge and endurance.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F01435%2Fspringboks_1435752a.jpg&f=1
They were very very good. Only team in the past 10 years to regularly beat the all blacks. But they played a very methodical practical style of rugby around set pieces and strength. I bet half were on roids. Matfield and Botha are probably the best lock combo in my lifetime.
so every white man outside ZA can make a white ZA woman his ho. she’d be so poor.
another interesting HBD fact:
there are european sumos…and they suck.
sumo is now dominated by mongolians.
there’s also an interesting physiological fact.
sumos are fat for two reasons. the same two reasons that offensive linemen are fat.
1. the weight per se is an advantage.
2. after a certain point of adiposity, further gains in strength can’t be achieved without also putting on fat. or at least it’s a lot harder. fat people are strong. it’s true.
Yes i beiieve that must be true. You see a lot of these strongmen competitiins have chunky guys