Would prehistoric humans have been considered negroid or australoid by modern standards?

Status
Closed
Oct 2017
357
America ??
Can’t decide whether this thread is better suited to this or the archeology section. If so, then I should start the process of trying to move this thread there, which would need to be done soon, so please do let me know your opinion.

What are your thoughts about this question?

For myself I think that the subject statement is rather obvious isn’t it, since Africans, & especially Australian Aboriginals, have the most archaic features & share the most traits with prehistoric humans & other primates within modern humanity? Africans have neotenized greatly, culminating with the khoisan people, whereas australoids don’t have any neotenous traits which the other races have been developing & don’t lack archaic traits which the other races have devolved.

Which of the great races, the highest general division of humanity, mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid, australoid, etc. would prehistoric humans have been considered both by layman’s perceptions, & classified as more scientifically, by contemporary standards, if the choice had to be made, or at least considered closest to or most resembling?

What we’re probably thinking of then are remains going really far back enough to not be of obvious contemporary racial categories aren’t we?

Since prehistoric humans are said to not resemble any modern race, this question may end up being more about opinions rather than hard answers, might it?

Please explain & fill in details regarding your opinion & knowledge. But please do answer the main question first before adding in more details, even if to explain how this subject statement has no merit!

Not sure how much merit this book holds, but do have a look at the tables in ‘Section II: Traits of Living Populations’ for a nice summary: https://analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/richard-d-fuerle-erectus-walks-amongst-us.pdf

Here’s the tables themselves. The site’s in French but you can translate it in google. You can also click on the images & save them: Erectus Walks Amongst Us – Richard D. Fuerle [Section 2]

Yes I am aware that the provided article seems to have racist agendas. I haven’t actually read the book & don’t know much about it yet. The agendas are not what I’m interested in however. All I’m interested in the book is the summary tables on the physical characteristics of the races. It’s nice & concise & seems to be accurate for the most part even if only brief & summarized. The tables were probably composed by the author himself, can’t seem to find such summary tables on the races elsewhere, especially considering how this kind of subject is considered politically incorrect in this era.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,040
Portugal
The book is available here, in English: Erectus Walks Amongst Us: The Evolution of Modern Humans (2008) - Richard Fuerle : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

About the author, according to the book, p.5:

“The author is a retired patent attorney who lives on a small wildlife refuge on an island in upstate of New York. A perpetual student, he has degrees in math (BS), law (JD), economics (MA), physics (BA), and chemistry (BA). He is an amateur composer (www.whiskeyrebellion.us) and has written books on Austrian economics (www.purelogic.us), natural rights (www.naturalrights.us), and anarchy (www.anarchism.net/steppes.htm).”

About the anthropological concept of Race:

The Concept of Race

or on a more popular site:

Race (human categorization) - Wikipedia
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,248
Italy, Lago Maggiore
Neanderthalians met humans coming from South ... I guess they considered us Asian guys, simply because they weren't in condition to note that we came from Africa.

By modern standards ... do you mean aspect? Negroid [early Australians weren't different from Negroids, at least in the first phases of their evolution].
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
6,040
Portugal
To the question “Would prehistoric humans have been considered negroid or australoid by modern standards?”

We would have to know, from what timeline? From what region? And considered today by whom? A person in the UK? In the USA? In Portugal, Angola or in Brazil?

To quote Francisco Bethencourt in his book “Racisms”: “… in the USA, a drop of African blood defines an individual as black, while, in Brazil, the status of middle class whitens the human facial skin.”

And about the concept of race, from the mentioned article in Wikipedia:

“Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[3] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[4] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[5][6][7][8][9]

Or from the anthropology.net site:

“The conception of race is truly in the eyes of the beholder. It depends on who is looking, judging, assuming and has little or nothing to do with biology but the history of a society that makes assumptions or stereotypes of people of darker skin to create a social hierarchy that is visible or easily identified. There is variation of skin colors depending on the region of one’s origin. But the emphasis put behind the skin is the creation of race. The emphasis that is put in place by a sociocultural system is where the interpretation and conception of race stems from…”
 
Mar 2017
878
Colorado
Judging human ancestry by appearance I think is a mistake. Within any racial/ethnic group, there's a lot of variation. All blue-eyed Caucasians are supposed to be related to a single individual from Turkey, but some black Africans developed blue eyes independently. Appearance is a weak metric.

Traditionally, archeologic evidence was used ... where did they actually find evidence of people spreading from place to place. I think this has largely been superceded by DNA analysis. The same DNA analysis that links all Europeans to a single African "Eve" now has provided evidence for multiple migrations.



So, which "prehistoric" humans are you talking about? You have to pick a date. The only "Australoid" people would be in Australia: I don't see any evidence of migration OUT of Australia. EVERYONE is ultimately African ... unless you look at Europe before the African emigration, in which case the people would be a mix of Neanderthal-oid and Denisovian-oid ... and whatever other -oids were out there.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,571
Las Vegas, NV USA
Without resorting to genetics it's clear humans did not originate in Australia and fossil evidence strongly indicates humans originated in Africa. This is pretty much undisputed. Descriptions of modern races doesn't apply to early humans.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
When a a first year undergraduate studying Social Anthropology, our tutor challenged us to find a universally accepted definition of the term 'race'

We all went off and looked ,with some confidence. None of us were successful....

At the next tutorial, our tutor told us that there was no universally accepted definition of the term 'race'. There are divisions use for convenience by several disciplines . However, there is only one race of people on earth; 'the human race'

I post this for interest, not to begin a discussion. It's just an opinion, albeit that of a professor of Anthropology, told to me a long time ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8 and Tulius
Oct 2017
357
America ??
Just because modern humans originated in Africa doesn’t mean that they resembled modern Africans or ‘negroids’. The earliest known skulls identifiable as ‘negroid’ are no older than the Holocene (see Asselar Man). ‘Australoids’ like Australian Aborigines & Melanesians have the most archaic features of modern humans, so are probably our best representatives of prehistoric humans, physically speaking. The Land Down Under’s isolation itself explains the why or reason for their retention of archaic features, they were way out of reach of the invading mongoloid & caucasoid peoples, while their unique genetic distance from Africans is the proof of that, showing that their ancestors split from them the first tens of thousands of years before the ancestors of everyone else did. Also, there have been a number of migrations into Africa, most notably in North & East Africa, which would have affected the phenotypes of these peoples. Furthermore, their ancestors (of Australoids) have never practiced agriculture as there’s no evidence of that ever reaching or originating on the continent, so haven’t been under similar biological pressures which the ancestors of most other people in the world have undergone from agriculture & sedentary lifestyles. I’d be interested to read more about how sedentary lifestyles may encourage neoteny to develop within populations. Hunter-gatherers no doubt existed well into historical times around the world, but they would have been increasingly exposed to agriculture & civilization over the ages, & its now widely acknowledged now that groups traditionally identified as hunter-gatherers have not had in most cases a continuous history of so, & that groups throughout history have been switched between. But that’s ruled out in Australia with no evidence of agriculture whatsoever there.
Yet even their skull & skeletal anatomy seems more modern or neotenous than those of even prehistoric anatomically modern human remains. My understanding is that the current races are only traceable to no further than 30 to 40 millennia ago in the fossil record.

The term ‘race’ itself has been interpreted in various ways, usually negatively unfortunately, largely due to political correctness arising from the unfortunate persecution of minorities in Western history.
While it’s widely acknowledged that there are no specific racial genes, it is still acknowledged that there are physical variations across modern humans extending beyond mere skin color & hair form. While more controversial, it’s still acknowledged that modern humans can roughly be divided into three or four broad phenotypic divisions usually known as the great races. But yes, I should acknowledge beforehand that these broad divisions are very superficial more than anything, & doesn’t coincide with the real divisions or markers which are within genetics.

Since the forum staff makes it clear that we don’t talk about genetics here, if you have anything to share on that matter please do share articles or links on that here to read ourselves.
In the meantime here, we should discuss physical anatomy, like how I currently am doing. After all, we should be aware that race & physical variation doesn’t coincide with genetics.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed