Dead Issues

Gang Bang Funeral

In some societies necrophilia was enacted owing to a belief that the soul of an unmarried woman would not find peace; among the Kachin of Myanmar, versions of a marriage ceremony were held to lay a dead virgin to rest, which would involve intercourse with the corpse. Similar practices existed in some pre-modern Central European societies when a woman who was engaged to be married died before the wedding.

Good God, how horrible!

Cool Sculptures

Acts of necrophilia are reportedly displayed on Moche artifacts of Peru.


Wisdom of the Ancients

Herodotus writes in The Histories that, to discourage intercourse with a corpse, ancient Egyptians left deceased beautiful women to decay for “three or four days” before giving them to the embalmers. This practice originated from the need to discourage the men performing the funerary customs from having sexual interest in their charges.

Indeed, the same famous work discusses one Pharaonic era undertaker whose particular kink was screaming for his “Mummy” while doing the deed.

Birds and the Bees, or Animals Do It Too

Necrophilia is known to occur in animals, with a number of confirmed observations.

Kees Moeliker allegedly made one of these observations while he was sitting in his office at the Natuurmuseum Rotterdam, when he heard the distinctive thud of a bird hitting the glass facade of the building. Upon inspection, he discovered a drake (male) mallard lying dead about two meters from the building. Next to the downed bird there was a second drake mallard standing close by.

As Moeliker observed the couple, the living drake picked at the corpse of the dead one for a few minutes and then mounted the corpse and began copulating with it. The act of necrophilia lasted for about 75 minutes, in which time, according to Moeliker, the living drake took two short breaks before resuming with copulating behavior.

Moeliker surmised that at the time of the collision with the window the two mallards were engaged in a common pattern in duck behavior which is called “rape flight.” “When one died the other one just went for it and didn’t get any negative feedback – well, didn’t get any feedback,” according to Moeliker. This is the first recorded case of necrophilia in the mallard duck- though not the only recorded case of homosexuality within the bird family.

The Cane Toads: an Unnatural History film shows a male toad copulating with a female toad who has been run over by a car. He goes on to do this for eight hours, although the entire eight-hour act is not depicted in the movie, thank God.

In the case of a praying mantis, necrophilia could be said to be part of their methods of reproduction. The larger female will sometimes decapitate or even eat her mate during copulation. However, this only happens in 5-31% of cases. However, given that the sexual activity of a male mantis is controlled by a brain-like ganglion in his abdomen it may not be appropriate to refer to him as a “corpse”, even when he is decapitated.

Dang man, a queer necrophiliac birdbrain odd duck, a ugly toad fucking a toadly chick for a full eight hours without even getting bored, worrying about genital warts or stopping to eat a fly, and male praying mantises with their brains in their dicks. I’ve heard of guys thinking with their dicks before, but that’s ridiculous.

Are Whites Necessary For Modern Civilization?

A White nationalist commenter comments on the Neandertal thread:

Robert, I don’t get your strange form of ethnocentrism. You claim to think “we’re the best,” as a sort of superstition, while knowing that we’re not really the best; while in many respects “we’re the best,” is obviously true. You can’t compare Black supremacist ideology with White supremacist. The former may take things a bit too far and sometimes be a bit off the facts, but the latter is simply laughable.

Whites may not be perfect, but they do have a fairly high IQ and the most impressive track record in terms of scientific progress and high culture.

As far as the West not always being dominant– the Chinese had not discovered that the Earth was a sphere or that the sun was larger than the Earth by 1600 AD. We beat them to it by more than a millennium.

They were also amazed by Euclid as they had nothing comparable in mathematics; they had no system of formal logic or precise scientific method; excluding the Great Wall, no ancient architecture to compare with our great Cathedrals and monuments etc. you could go on and on. The Asians today have more great pianists to play Chopin, but where is the Asian Chopin? They are impressive people, but clearly less innovative.

The Arabs had a bit of a renaissance partly due to having better access to ancient Greek manuscripts; but it was short lived. Who’s following in the tradition of Classical Civilization today?

This whole “the West has only been ahead for a few hundred years,” line is silly. We really are in a different league than everyone else.

I get your point about it being in ill taste to constantly harp on and on about your own group’s superiority. But when we’re under attack – being flooded with nonwhites and told that Western Civilization really isn’t anything to be proud of, and even if it is, nonwhites will do just fine preserving the West despite having historically shown little to no ability to do so – well then we need to start making the case for being able to do something they can’t. The facts are on our side, we just need to have the nerve to use them.

If we want to preserve the civilization we love we’re going to have to accept that we can’t avoid hurting nonwhites’ feelings by telling them that they’re unable to maintain Western Civilization on their own.

As far as my form of ethnocentrism, well, it’s completely normal. Most ethnicities do think that their people are better or the best. It’s normal thinking. Many of these folks are also often non-racist to anti-racist. The two things are quite compatible. I don’t want to get into scientifically proving that we Whites are superior. What for? It’s a disgusting enterprise, and probably won’t be fruitful anyway.

I have some extremely serious problems with this line of thinking. For starters, its presumptions.

I do not think that NE Asian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Siberian, Taiwanese, Singaporean, or Vietnamese people lack the ability to produce a great modern civilization. They can clearly do so. I see them as continuing to be able to produce great and modern civilizations into the future. I don’t even have a problem with the civilizations produced by SE Asians in general.

I doubt if the problems of Indians, South Asians, Central Asians and Arabs are due to their genes. After all, the UAE right now is one of the most spectacularly modern places on Earth. Saudi Arabian cities look like Tuscon suburbs. Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait are quite similar. What’s so inferior about that? Sure, Islam is fucked, but there’s nothing in these folks’ genes that keeps them from producing great modern societies.

The North Africans should do pretty well too. Last I heard Libya is quite a modern country.

The Turks and the people of the Caucasus can produce modern societies, as can the Iranians. Iranian weaponry now is considered to be dangerously lethal by both the US and the Israelis. Recall the Iranian anti-ship missile that destroyed the Israeli warship off of Lebanon in the last war. Kickass product.

The Pakistanis and Indians produced nuclear weapons. No small feat that.

I do have a lot of worries about the abilities of Africans to produce great societies, but it’s basically their problem, not mine. We are not going to let Africans flood in here anyway.

Furthermore, looking at history is not too relevant. Sure, Africa did not produce much in the past, on their own. But Africa is no longer isolated from all outside influences. The great leaps of knowledge, science and innovation that occur in the rest of the world are readily available to educated and skilled Africans soon after they are invented or thought up. Therefore, Africa has a much better chance to become successfully modern than in the past.

Caribbeans, I don’t know. Trinidad and Tobago has a PCI of $20,000/year with totally free health care for all and 100% free education for all, through college level. Hell, they’re kicking our ass in that regard. We can’t even give our people free health care and college education and they can. Who’s inferior now? We are!

As suggested in the African example above, the modern world is changing so much that it can hardly be compared to older worlds. Technology is global, and it reverberates around the globe like lightning, as does knowledge in all forms. The smart people anywhere produce innovation and knowledge, and then these facts and things move around the planet faster than you can blink your eyes.

They are made available from more skilled societies to societies that are not as skilled. Therefore, the differential IQ factors are somewhat modulated as knowledge and innovation produced in high-IQ societies flows to lower IQ societies for free.

The Hispanics are flooding in, it is true. Their societies seem to be rather chaotic and violent, but if you go to their capital cities in the wealthier districts, you will think you were in any large US city. There’s no real observable difference. Their problems are mostly due to issues of wealth distribution.

It’s hard to use national IQ’s to calculate national potentials. For instance, Cuba has 2% of Latin America’s population and 10% of its scientists. Cuban medicine is so good that wealthy Latin Americans go there (and pay good money) from all over the continent (medical tourism) to have specialty work done that cannot be done in their countries. Cuba has more agronomists per capita than anywhere else on Earth. It has the best educated population on the continent.

Medical discoveries and breakthroughs occur regularly in Cuba and are published in scientific journals. Cuban biotechnology, a high-IQ industry, competes effectively with biotech from huge Western corporations and sells its excellent competitive products the world over.

All of these achievements have been done with a Cuban IQ of 85, lower than that of US Blacks, who White Supremacists consider to be a failed people, mostly due to an IQ of 86.8 or so. If Cubans can do so well with an IQ lower than US Blacks, how can US Blacks be a failed people due to IQ?

I don’t really believe that other societies produce inferior musicians or music, but maybe my tastes are different from yours.

What I would like to do is to eliminate illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration. I don’t care what race or ethnicity comes here, as I don’t buy your arguments that they are genetically inferior per se.

I would say that the combined average IQ of the immigrants we let in cannot be lower than the US average (either 98 or 100 right now, depending on scale used). So if 100 immigrants of whatever constellation of groups is let in, let their combined average IQ be 98-100. If the Jamaicans, Nigerians, Filipinos, Mexicans, Palestinians, Indians, Thais and Algerians we let in all average 98-100 IQ, what’s the worry? I don’t buy your argument that a 98-100 IQ person from one of these ethnicities is still somehow genetically inferior to a 98-100 IQ White American.

You say that Whites are going extinct and we are being flooded with non-Whites, but how are you going to save the White West? Even if you cut off all non-White immigration, you will still be only 66% White and declining. With differential birthrates, Whites will continue to decline. Then what are you going to do as Whites continue to decline?

Not to mention cutting off non-White immigration will be politically impossible. All the non-Whites will oppose it. Now you need to get 79% of the White electorate to vote for it. Not only that, but every few years, you will need a higher and higher White percentage to support it – 80%, then 81%, etc.

Do you honestly think that you can pull that off? It sounds impossible. Both political parties, the entire MSN media, etc will be deadset against it and will flood society with propaganda against it calling those who support it KKK, White Supremacists, Nazis, racists, etc.

Excellent Shot Across the Bow at the Nordicists

This is a great comment from an earlier piece I wrote, The Racial Makeup of Hispanics. It has attracted many an idiotic comment, especially from ignorant Hispanics. However, this comment was a nice one. It was written by a Spaniard in response to a stupid comment by a Nordicist claiming that ancient Greece and Rome were Nordic and that Mediterranean types were inferior non-Whites.

Spain a bastardized race? Britain is by far more bastardized.

Tacitus, a Roman historian made a clear description of how the Romans, Greeks, Celts, Germanics and Middle Eastern Scythians were.

First of all, Roman historical documents describe Carthaginian port towns as far as in Ireland. Carthaginian traders were originally from Phoenicia. These documents from around 300 B.C. clearly describe the phenotype differences of the Romans from other Barbaric tribes.

The Roman description of themselves is clearly the same as modern day Spanish person, Roman nose profiles resemble a Spanish nose profile. Romans describe themselves as having pale, easily tanned skin, dark hair and mostly having amber, light brown and more commonly hazel eyes.

The Celts, contrary to common ignorant beliefs, were described in 300 B.C. as having pale skin that could tan, dark hair and to a large degree, blue eyes.

Many Hibernians (Irish), however, were describe as having brown skin and dark eyes. Others as White with dark eyes and large noses. Ireland was then inhabited by a majority of Basques, some Celtic tribes and many Carthaginian traders.

The Germanic tribes were described as tall, blond and and light blue eyed, and reddish white skin.

Scythians originated in what today is Kazakhstan and were describe by Tacitus as tall, grey eyed and red haired.

These historical descriptions explain why Italians, Spaniards, Southern French, Portuguese, and to some degree Romanians look alike. Romans were never a Nordic race, nor did they ever have blue eyes. The Mediterranean people are not a result of a bastardized race.

The Roman Empire extended its influence to Britain, and many Roman Nobles moved in what is today known as Wales. As an obvious result, a great % of Welsh people have hazel eyes, Roman nose profiles and Mediterranean skin, perhaps paler due to the fact that Britain is located in a Northern region. Some might even still look Basque. The only reason Carthaginian or Semite phenotypes became uncommon is because of a constant absorption by other ethnicities.

Greeks thought that blue eyes were a sign of cowardice and uncivilized people.

Romans viewed Celtic, Germanic and other tribes, except Greeks, as inferior to them. Before the Roman conquest, technologically and culturally speaking, they were right; they possessed a poor writing system, did not have massive constructions and lacked a truly organized state. Germanic tribesmen rarely possessed any metal armor and fought naked. For Romans, Celtic or Nordic features were barbaric.

Ignorant people think mestizo people look like Indians or Arabs. I’ve been to Mexico and have some friends who are blond, blue eyed and both their parents look Indian; some others have green, hazel and grey eyes with white reddish skin, and some are even red haired with swarthy parents.

I’ve seen mixed people in Sweden (a great % of population) who come from Sami parents (who came from Siberian Mongoloid tribes) and are light blond haired and light blue eyed. The same in Finland and even in Greenland. This mix happened thousands of years before the Viking invasion, so DNA tests prove that English people have Sami blood to a certain extent too – they just lack the phenotype.

Ignorant people think mixed races among European and non-European have to look non-White, which is really stupid.

Hungarians are also a mixed of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Magyar and Mongols. Many Russians absorbed Sami, Ugric and Mongoloid people for centuries. And Jews have also been mixing for almost a thousand years with some Europeans. If Jewish people hadn’t preserved their religion, they would be considered European. In Germany many blond Nordic looking folks were accepted in the Army even when their parents were Jewish.

The final point is that when mestizo populations are constantly absorbed by another group, over the centuries they become part of the culture that absorbed them. That is also the main reason why our languages constantly change; all Germanic languages used to be one but got mixed and changed. Same with Romance, Slavic and probably every single language in the world.

Some very nice comments here. First of all, my prejudices. I regard Nordicists as splitters who are trying to divide out great White race. Further, I like Med Whites a lot, and I surely consider at least all of the Meds in Europe as fully, 100% White, whatever their petty genetics may look like. If you look White and act White, you’re White. Real simple. As far as Extended Mediterraneans in North Africa, the Middle East, etc., it’s a much more mixed bag, but I think there are a lot of White Berbers and White Arabs too. It probably mostly boils down to individual phenotype.

This comment makes clear that Meds and Spaniards are not some bastardized race, instead, they are simply the Meds, an ancient White people who are the direct ancestors of some of the greatest Whites that ever lived, the Romans and the Greeks.

Furthermore, the commenter notes that the British are quite mixed, with many Med types and Med features, especially among the Welsh. There is substantial Phoenician and Semitic (Middle Eastern Arab) blood in both the Irish and the British. Going back 2,300 years, the Irish were a dark haired and dark eyed people with heavy inputs from the dark Basques and Phoenicians and Celts.

Even the Celts, romanticized as uber-Nordics, are proven here to be have been dark haired with skin that tanned easily. They were very different from the Germanic types. Further, it is important to note a huge Celtic component in the Spaniards and Portuguese, especially in the north of Spain, in Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, the Basque Country, Argaon and Catalonia. There is substantial Celtic input in northern Portugal in the Lusitania region.

Celts are considered to be uber-Nordics, but the Spaniards are heavily Celtic, so are the Spaniards Nordics or what? The whole Nord vs. Med debate starts to get absurd because there has been so much Nordic-Med mixing over the millenia.

I laughed when I read that the ancient Greeks and Romans thought that Germanic Nordic types and features were inferior and barbarian phenotypes and peoples. How the world has changed, but it goes to show that all this crap is pretty subjective and there’s not a lot of “science” going on in the intra-European fights.

Surely the Hungarians are part Asiatic. You can sometimes see it in their eyes. Definitely, Russians are part Asiatic, mostly Siberian, as are Swedes and Finns, who have considerable Sami in them.

And of course Hispanic mestizos look like everything under the sun. One or both parents can be quite dark and indigenous looking, while one or more of the kids can be quite light, and vice versa. In the Caribbean, it works the same way, but the mix is Black and White. A genetic approach to Whiteness is nonsensical when denying Whiteness to someone who looks and acts White.

Megalithic Culture

Strange stuff.

Anyone know what to make of this stuff? I think they are onto something, except for maybe the last paragraph.

I don’t know what to say about this other than compared to the usual whacked out theories like this, this one actually seems to have something to it. I don’t agree that these people were IE speakers. At least some of them probably spoke something similar to Basque or Etruscan.

People have been cruising around on boats for a long time. The first OOA folks, 75,000 YBP, left Ethiopia and sailed the 16 miles to Yemen. By 60,000 YBP, their boats had taken them to  Australia.

Humans settled the Philippines, apparently by boat, as early as 30,000 YBP.

The first modern Aborigines, the Murrayans, arrived in Australia, probably from Thailand around 16,000 YBP. They must have come by boat. These seem to have been a proto-Ainu type people related to the Jomon. These same Jomon left Thailand and sailed up to Japan around the same time, where they eventually became the Ainu. Along the way, it looks like they stopped off in the Philippines.

Later, around 12,000 YBP, a group called the Carpinterians left Southern India and also populated Australia. They could only have gone by boat. This was a Veddoid-type group.

6,000 years ago, Siberians left Asia and came to America, giving rise to the Na-Dene. The latest theory is that they came by boat down the Pacific Coast, settling first in the Pacific Coast finger of Alaska that extends southeastward.

New Article About the Peopling of India

A new article has come out in Nature Magazine dealing with the Peopling of India, a subject I have dealt with quite a bit on this site. The Indian nationals who hate the Aryan Invasion concept have been jumping up and down for joy over this article. I’m not sure where these people are coming from, but generally, it’s a silly, anti-scientific and reactionary place.
Their argument is usually that the Aryan Invasion could not have taken place since our Hindu texts say that it never happened. Well, there is not much to say to such a powerful scientific argument like that!
Those who oppose the Aryan Invasion theory are generally Far Rightwing Hindu nationalists or Hindutvas. They also tend to be associated with the higher castes, especially the Brahmins. One argument is an Indian nationalist one. This crazy line says that there was no Aryan invasion – instead this was a lie made up by the evil British colonialists to “divide the people of India.” As Hindutva fascism claims (falsely) to be a national unification project, as all such projects do, they rail against the “outsiders who divide our people.”
Problem with this argument is that the Indians themselves and the Hindus in particular had done a mighty fine job dividing up the Indian people themselves into many thousands of insane, cruel, backwards and anti-human caste structures.
Another crazy Indian nationalist argument is that there was no caste until the evil Brits came. Or there was caste before then, but it was nothing. The evil Brits came and made caste so much worse. This argument is favored with high castes, typically Brahmins. It’s dubious. Caste was probably much worse before the British came.
The British, civilized folks that they were, hated the animalistic, bestial, primitive caste system and tried to eliminate as part of the necessary mission of civilizing the Indians. This article notes that caste is as old as India, and that the British did not hoist it upon the unwilling heads of the innocent and pure Indians.
Another crazy Indian nationalist line is that there was no race structure in India. Race was invented in India by those evil Brits again. The Brits divided the peaceable, loving, brotherly and Kumbayaa-singing Indian people into two races, a northern race that appeared European or Aryan and a southern race that they called Dravidian.
There does seem to be something to the concept of a somewhat bimodal race structure in India. The people of the South are darker and have a different physical type than the Northern Indics, who look more Iranian or even European. Some say that the Dravidians are the remains of a Mediterranean Caucasian Race that moved into India 13-17,000 years ago. That seems reasonable to me.
This article turns that on its head and argues that all Indians are a mixture between North Indians and South Indians. The South Indians are more Asiatic types and the North Indians are a more European type, yet all of the Indian people are thoroughly mixed between the two. This also seems reasonable.
Articles about the piece, especially from the reactionary Brahmin-controlled Indian media, are crowing about “the death of the Aryan invasion theory.” But the Nature piece proclaims no such thing.
The Nature article claims that the South Indians came to India 70,000 YBP. The only remaining pure members of the South Indian group are the Negritos of the Andaman Islands. This part is reasonable enough. The piece also claims that the North Indians (or Aryans) came to India 45,000 YBP. This much is a real shocker, and I do not know what to make of this.
45,000 YBP, there were no real Caucasoid types anywhere. Further, skulls from even north India dated at 24,000 YBP look like Aborigines. So these North Indians must have looked like Aborigines at first. In fact, all Indians looked something like Aborigines until 8,000 YBP when they started transitioning to Caucasian types.
Anyway, there was an Aryan invasion. Or at least, a group of Indo-Aryans moved down from Kazakhstan into Iran, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, the Caucasus, Pakistan and North India about 3,500 YBP. They all speak related languages that we can provably trace back to the Russian steppes. We can follow their movements archeologically as they moved down from Kazakhstan into North India.
Now whether or not these folks were “invaders” is open to question. Perhaps they were “migrants.” Maybe they were “undocumented workers.” Maybe they were going on an extended vacation down South. I haven’t the faintest idea. But there was clearly a movement of Indo-European speaking Indo-Aryan folks down from Kazakhstan into Central and South Asia 3,500 YBP. That’s a fact of history, and no sane person questions that. Nor does this paper call that into question.
Another argument that Indian nationalists are making is that Indians are a unique race, a separate race, not part of any other race. If you look at the data, that’s an interesting argument, but skull and genetic data (see Cavalli-Sforza for instance) show that Indians are a member of the Caucasian race, though they are one of the most divergent members of that group.
One interesting finding is that Gujaratis seem to form their own separate minor race in India and differentiate from all the others. I can’t explain that, but it may have something to do with stories about Scythians moving into that area 1,200 YBP.
One of the more sensible dissections of the article is here by Razib of GNXP Science Blogs. Razib is sounding a lot more sensible since he got his better writing gig at Science Blogs.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

More On Who Were the Ancient Romans

A new comment on the previous post offers the best explanation yet.

The statues and paintings do not look like Meds or anyone else it seems. Their facial appearance was not as attractive as Meds or modern Italians (who are an extreme mixture of everything).
They were a bit shorter than the German/Celts but were much more muscular. The few bones (ancient original Romans used cremation) showed heavy muscularity, much greater even than Moderns.
My premise is that the Roman style of fighting served the infantry well, and their battles were of brute strength. Their sword the Gladius used was not as good as the Celtic sword in many ways. The Celtic sword has been shown superior in computer tests. However, the Roman style was to fight in a compact manner and use their superior physical strength it seems.
They were even outnumbered by great margins it just about all battles. This fact seems to not to carry much weight, but in hand to hand combat it does. How the Romans won these battles was in part organization, but the endgame was really genetics.
Where they came from is anybody’s guess. They do not appear to be like anyone but Romans.
Of course in the later stages they were just a mix, sort of like modern day Italians.

Well, sure. It’s all starting to make sense now. Along with the earlier post, We Are Not Our Ancestors , it’s all starting to come together. The Romans, like many other ancient peoples of Europe and probably of other places, were part of a race or ethnic group that no longer exists.
This is why the Meds and Nordicists have been fighting so long about whether the statues and paintings are Meds or Nords. The reason it’s controversial and hard to figure out in the first place (hence the debate) is that the Romans were neither!
They were not Nordics or Germans, nor were they Italians or Meds. They were an extinct race, vanished from the Earth. It’s nice the way some unknown commenter comes along and so neatly ties together loose ends.
I found it very interesting that the Romans were outnumbered in almost all their battles but won most of them anyway. The commenters theory sounds better than any others out there. Most combat was indeed hand to hand back in those days. What a terrifying way to fight a war!. Can you imagine having to go hand to hand with a deadly enemy in a kill or be killed battle? I’d rather take my chances in modern way any day.
As a side note, I am really getting tired of all of these races and ethnic groups claiming the achievements of ancient folks as their own. In many cases, the great ancients do not seem like the ancestors of those puffing their chests.

Geographic Spread and Ethnic Origins of European Haplogroups

Geographic Spread and Ethnic Origins of European Haplogroups, on the very interesting Eupedia page.
From the About: was founded in December 2004.Our aim is to create a detailed and informative guide for countries of the European Union for travellers, expats and locals alike, with an emphasis on sightseeing, history, culture, economy, and life in Europe.

I figure that this page tells us something about the origins of the Caucasians, not to mention the origins of the Europeans. One thing that is incontrovertibly clear is that the Caucasian Race did not arise in Europe. Instead, it appears to have arisen in Southern Iran, the Caucasus and the Middle East, as I have speculated. So the Grandaddy of all the great European White Men was some towelheaded wog. Figures. Choke on that, White nationalists.
Going back even further, the Caucasians appear to have origins in Haplogroup N, which, a commenter on this blog has noted, seems to originate in Eastern Africa, especially around the area of the Masai in Kenya. This is also as I suspected, as I assume that the proto-Caucasians may have roots in the Masai, the Tutsi, the Southern Sudanese and other Desert Adopted Elongated African types. The Tutsi even have an uncanny, almost Caucasian appearance about them, despite their African purity (no Caucasian blood).
It also looks like any European clades go back no further than 13,000 years in Europe, and even at that time, I am told that Europeans looked more like Arabs than present day Aryan Supermen. This means that the vaunted White Race, like most exact races on Earth, is a relatively new creation, the latest model, as it were. Attempts to link present day Europeans to Paleolithic Europeans would appear to be absurd on their face.
If anyone other than White nationalist boneheads can make more sense of that page than this, go to it. It’s looks kind of mind-boggling from here.

"We Are Not Our Ancestors"

We Are Not Our Ancestors: Evidence for Discontinuity between Prehistoric and Modern Europeans
I just found this intense article right now, and I’m going to post it, but I haven’t looked it over yet. Her contention is that that present-day Europeans are not descended from Paleolithic Europeans, in other words, the folks who made the first musical instrument and the first figurine are not the ancestors of the present-day Europeans. I don’t know who these Paleolithic folks were, but I assume that like populations elsewhere in the world, they were part of some human race that just doesn’t exist anymore.
Like I said, I have not read the post, but I assume that the Indo-Europeans must have overrun those Paleolithic folks and either displaced them or swamped them out.
Feel free to look it over and see what she’s up to.

Whites Made The First Maps and Other Nonsense

The White nationalist crazies are all in a flutter over the latest news out of Spain. In a cave, a stone tablet has been found with what may be the world’s oldest map on it. The WN’s, as usual, are huffing and puffing about how this is evidence that Whites made the first maps.
There are problems with this analysis. The first is that the folks living in Spain 14,000 were first of all not ancestral to modern day Europeans. Second of all, they did not look like modern day Europeans. Instead, they looked more like Arabs and their DNA resembles modern-day Arabs more than any other race.
The White race only goes back maybe 9000 years or so anyway. It’s well documented that the folks living in Europe around 12000 YBP looked like Arabs and their DNA looked like the DNA of modern day Arabs. We know what they looked like by looking at skulls. White skin only goes back about 10,000 YBP and blond hair, red hair and blue eyes about 9000 YBP. Those are all just recent mutations. European Whites as we know them today are a new model.
It’s not that these people were Arabs, they were sort of like proto-Arabs.
White nationalists counter that “White mummies” have been found in China at 9000 YBP.
The reference is to the Tarim mummies. The Tarim mummies do not go back 9000 yrs in China. More like 3-4000 YBP. Anyway, those are Tocharian speakers, who are Indo-Europeans. Indo-Europeans are some of the real Whites who moved into Europe and really “Whitened” the place up.
The White European race we know today (and the Caucasian race in the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North India is largely an IE legacy. This includes folks like the White Berbers and the White Arabs.
If you go back before 10,000 YBP, most modern races do not even exist.
Amerindians only go back 6000 YBP. At 9000 YBP, they look like Polynesians and at 12000 YBP they look like Papuans.
SE Asians only go back about 5000 YBP or maybe less. Prior to that, they look like Melanesians.
NE Asians go back about 9000 YBP. Prior, they look like Ainu.
Aborigines go back about 13,000 YBP. Prior to that, no one knows, but maybe they looked like Negritos.
East Indians go back about 8000 YBP. Prior, they look like Aborigines.
African Negroid Blacks only go back about 9,500 YBP. Prior, they look like Pygmies or Bushmen.
As far as whether these folks were our ancestors, they were not. We are not ancestral to the European populations of 10,000 YBP and earlier. There is an interesting article along these lines called We Are Not Our Ancestors that you can Google. What probably happened was that Paleo-Europeans were replaced by Indo-European speakers moving in.

On the Contradictions of Race Realism and Leftism

A commenter asks:

Robert, how do you square being ultra-left in the USA with being anti-cultural-Marxism? I mean, as a white male, don’t you sometimes feel like a 1940s-era Jewish Nazi?I mean, I understand your views on policy, and I agree with them to an extent, but how do you handle the fact that most of your political allies are destructive and antithetical to your professed worldview?

Easy! As far as economics and a general view of society, I’m a socialist, a Communist, a Marxist, etc. No, I do not believe that the rich get everything, the poor get nothing and everyone else, not to mention society, the environment and every non-domesticated non-human living creature gets screwed. I hate capitalism, and I use a Marxist analysis in evaluating many of the things that are happening in society.
Marx did not have much to say about race. In a few places, he can be found quoted as an out and out racist, typical of the times. Lenin hadn’t much to say about it either. Even Stalin didn’t say much about it, other than condemning anti-Semitism. Mao talked a bit about race, but if he had 100 million Africans living in the Middle Kingdom, maybe he would not have been so PC.
Under socialism, race usually doesn’t matter all that much for some reason. I’m not sure why that is, but that’s just how it goes.
Some ethnic groups are incorrigible. The Hungarian Communists forced assimilation on the Hungarian Gypsies, and even outrageously forced sterilization on some of them. No one ever said they were bad Commies for doing so. The USSR and Mao’s China were quite brutal with minorities who acted up. Neither tolerated any amount of street crime.
Cuba has the 6th highest incarceration rate in the world, and almost all of it is street crime, not political crime, often theft.
The more you look at the history of the Eastern Bloc and China, the more you see what the disconnect really is, between the Cultural Marxism of the West, which has never ruled any state on Earth and between actually existing socialist societies, which were often quite different.
However, Marxism *is* a science, or at least it is supposed to be. I would love if the Left and the liberals were right on race. I spent years believing that and more years desperately trying to prove them right. They are just wrong. The Left and the liberals are wrong on race. They are telling lies.
The problem is that all race realism plays directly into the hands of the Right for the time being. So I can see why the Right opposes it. But as a science, we should be able to figure out a race-realist Marxism. Hell, we can come up with a theory for anything.
My colleagues are just wrong on race in the West. But over in India, Nepal, the Philippines, Peru, Colombia, Palestine, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, where the real struggles are taking place, there is no discussion of race realism or Cultural Marxism. It’s just a matter of justice. The USSR and China had no need for Cultural Marxism. It’s a fetish of the West. The ultra-Left in the West is insane on race, but I don’t support their Western project anyway (revolution in the West).
What am I supposed to do, man? I mean, I’m a Commie. I’m supposed to turn into a rightwing jerk just because the Left is nuts on race? Forget it. What can the Right offer me? I don’t agree with them on one single thing.
Race is only a small part of things. Economics is much larger.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans and Their Early Descendants: Proto-Languages and Homelands

The Indo-European languages include most of the languages of Europe, Iran and Northern India. For instance, English, Gaelic, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, German, Swedish, Norwegian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Romanian, Bulgarian, Russian, Greek, Albanian, Armenian and Kurdish are some of the better-known IE languages of Europe and the Near East.
In Iran, the major language, Farsi, is IE, as is the major language Pashto in Afghanistan. In India and Pakistan, the huge languages Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi are all IE.
They go back to a proto-language called Proto Indo-European, or PIE. In that the languages are all related, the truth is that the peoples are all related to for the greatest part. So Northern Indians, Pashtuns, Iranians, Kurds and Armenians are all closely related to Europeans since they all sprung in part from a common source, in the famous words of Sir William Jones, who discovered the IE languages in the late 1700’s.
Going back 6,500 years, we can reconstruct Proto-Indo-European quite well. One of the best resources is Julius Pokorny‘s Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary (or Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch).
Originally written in German, this incredible 2,500 page masterwork has been translated largely, but not completely, into English. One of my favorite pastimes is wading through this monster. I have a downloadable copy on the blog here (huge file).
The homeland of the Indo-Europeans is the subject of much debate, but the modern consensus centers around putting the homeland at 6500 years before present (YBP) around Southern Russia. I have narrowed it to southern Russia, southeastern Ukraine and southwestern Kazakhstan north of the Caucasus. This is more or less the region in between the Black and Caspian Seas.
An arid region called the Kuma-Manych Depression is in the middle of this region and seems to be a major center of PIE culture. I could not find a map of the Depression, but it separates the North Caucasus from the Russian Plain.
There were also settlements in southeastern Ukraine near the Sea of Azov, about 50 miles north of the Caspian Sea in southwestern Kazakhstan and up around the Lower Volga Region near Samara. A good word for this general region is the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

The homeland of the Proto Indo Europeans, as of 6,500 YBP. I looked around for good maps of the PIE homeland but I could not find any, so I drew my own. Copyright Oakhurst Technology 2009.
The homeland of the Proto Indo-Europeans, as of 6,500 YBP. I looked around for good maps of the PIE homeland but I could not find any, so I drew my own. Copyright Oakhurst Technology 2009.

From there, it’s not really known how or when the Proto-Indo-Europeans spread out, but they show up in Europe some time later. A good map of their migrations or conquests is here.
The PIE people had several advantages over their neighbors. They were already into the Bronze Age for one, and not only that, but there were horses running around Southern Russia. The PIE had managed to domesticate the horse. That’s quite an advantage, but the PIE people did one better.
They even invented a wheel. Then they logically put the two together and made horse-drawn chariots. With these chariots, the PIE people apparently conquered much of Europe and later parts of Southwest Asia and South Asia.
The people in Europe at this time were pre-PIE folks. We know little about their culture, but the master of PIE culture, the celebrated professor Marija Gimbutas (A woman!) calls it “Old Europe.” Old Europe is very little known or understood. A probable surviving language from Old Europe is Basque. Another, long extinct, is Etruscan.
The very early people of the British Isles, whose descendants are now known as the Black Irish, populated the Isles between 9000-11000 YBP. They had dark hair, dark eyes and very pale skin. Genetically, they seem to resemble the Basques and may have come on boats from Spain.
The Basques themselves and related peoples may have come from the Caucasus long, long ago. Although Basque is said to have no living relatives, I believe it is related to Caucasian languages like Chechen and Ingush. Throughout Europe one finds folks called Black this and Black that.
I had a girlfriend who called herself a Black Swede and later on, a girlfriend named Linda of Polish heritage. Both had very dark, curly hair, dark eyes and very pale skin. As a guess, these types of Europeans may be the remains of Old Europe.
Gimbutas is also the founder of the Kurgan Hypothesis, which is currently the best PIE theory out there. Gimbutas (photo) sort of lost it towards the end when she got into “Goddess worship” and whatnot, but it’s clear that this Lithuanian archeologist was one of the great scholars of our time.
Some time after 6500 YBP, PIE began to break up, but no one knows quite how this occurred. At any rate, by 4200 YBP, a split had occurred in PIE and a separate language had broken off, Indo-Iranian. There are maps out there of the Indo-Iranian homeland, but I don’t like them all that much so I made my own. My best guess was to place it in the far north of Kazakhstan and just over the border into Russia.
From there, after 3500 YBP, the Indo-Aryans moved out and migrated into Afghanistan, Pakistan, North India and Iran. Many people in these regions today speak Indo-Iranian languages descended from these people. These folks are thought to be the source of the famous Aryan Invasion of India at around this time.
A map of the Indo-Iranian Homeland in far northern Kazakhstan around 3,500 YBP. This is where the Iranians, Afghans, North Indians and many Pakistanis came from. Copyright Oakhurst Technology 2009.
A map of the Indo-Iranian Homeland in far northern Kazakhstan around 3500 YBP. This is where the Iranians, Afghans, North Indians and many Pakistanis came from. Copyright Oakhurst Technology 2009.

As I noted, the process whereby these languages split off, other than the Indo-Aryan split, is little known. However, assuming this tree diagram is correct, maybe it can shed some light on the matter.
A very interesting tree diagram of the IE language family.
A very interesting tree diagram of the IE language family. Click to enlarge.

Unfortunately, this chart is hard to read, so I will try to decipher it. The first thing to note is the Anatolian split in the tree, apparently the first split. There are problems with the date for PIE. A glottochronological study recently gave a date of about 8500 YBP for PIE, considerably earlier than the usual date of around 6500 YBP.
Promoters of something called the Anatolian Hypothesis have used this to suggest than an earlier language called Proto-Indo-Hittite was spoken in Anatolia 8500 years ago.
The Anatolian languages split off, and the PIE speakers moved to the Pontic Steppe. The movement of Proto-Indo-Hittite speakers out of Anatolia to the Pontic Steppe to form the PIE people may be related to the Black Sea Deluge Theory which has recently been proven correct.
The Black Sea expanded dramatically according to this theory as, around 7600 YBP, a waterfall 200 times the size of Niagara Falls (!) poured through the Bosporus Straits, transforming the pre-Black Sea freshwater lake into the present-day brackish (part-salt water, part-fresh water) Black Sea. Soon after this event, PIE culture appears in the Pontic Steppe.
This is a very controversial proposal called the Indo-Hittite Theory, but I have long supported it. The late Joseph Greenberg, one of the greatest historical linguists that ever lived, also supported it.
This theory holds that Indo-European has two branches, Indo-European proper and the Hittite branch. The Hittite branch is related to the other branch only in a binary fashion. There is good evidence for this.
The Anatolian languages, all of which are now extinct, are very strange and seem distant from the rest. The appear archaic and have retained many forms which seem to not be present on the rest of IE. My guess is these are archaic forms.
Anatolian lacks grammatical gender – masculine:feminine, an IE innovation spread through the family. Instead, it has an archaic noun class system called animate:inanimate. This is reminiscent of ancient Niger-Congo languages in Africa. In addition, the Anatolian vowel system is reduced (fewer vowels) and the case system is simpler.
Many basic IE vocabulary terms are simply missing in Anatolian. All of this debris tends to add up to the hypothesis of an ancient branch of the language family.
Tocharian is visible on the diagram as Italo-Celtic-Tocharian. This branch is extremely strange, since Tocharian was spoken way over in Asia near East Turkestan and Kyrgyzstan, and Celtic and Italic are spoken in the heart of Europe. This is the area where the mummies with blond hair and blue eyes have been found. Tocharian may have split as early as 6000 YBP.
The Tocharian language is also very ancient and strange and is only distantly related to the rest of IE. If anything, it seems to look somewhat like Anatolian.
A very ancient branch of IE also split off around this time. Known as Balkan or Paleo-Balkan, it may also have split off 6000 YBP. There were two major branches, Thracian and Illyro-Venetic. Thracian is extinct, and all that remains of Illyro-Venetic is Albanian, a very ancient IE tongue that is only distantly related to the rest of IE. Proto-Illyrian and Thracian split around 4200 YBP.
Here is a map of the Illyrian tribes before the Roman conquest. It is from this milieu that the Albanians emerged. The Albanian language is quite strange within IE and seems to have very ancient roots dating back to Proto-Paleo-Balkan from 6000 YBP.
Another very early split you can see in the chart is something called Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic. The Armeno-Hellenic branch probably split off 6000 YBP. The fact that Armenians and Greeks today still possibly retain a PIE appearance is also suggested by this early split. Only the Greek languages and Armenian remain of this family, as most of the family is extinct.
Proto-Hellenic may have split off around 5000 YBP, and Proto-Armenian may have split around 4500 YBP. The proto-Hellenics seem to have been related to the Indo-Iranians. This may be why a number of North Indians look like Greeks, Turks or Armenians.
Armenian and Hellenic are also strange IE branches that are only distantly related to the rest of IE.
The Italo-Celtic branch broke off as early as 5000 YBP. Proto-Celtic split about 2800 YBP; the homeland is in Northern Austria. The Hallstatt Culture is associated with them. The Proto-Italics are dated to around 3500 YBP in Italy. Before that, the Italo-Celtic Homeland is thought to have been in southern and central Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia.
The fact that Italics (Italians and related languages) and Celts share common roots shows how insane and stupid Nordicism is, as Nordicists say that Italians south of the Po are ‘non-Whites.’ It turns out that those greasy dagos and those blond and blue guys in dresses blowing pipes in the Highlands are the same folks after all, as they share common genetic roots in Austria 3500 YBP.
Proto-Germanic also dates far back, with pre-Proto-Germanic possibly being spoken 3800 YBP in northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Scandinavia ( map). The homeland of the pre-proto-Germanics is in Southern Sweden and Jutland. They may have settled this area as early as 5000 YBP. These speakers may have been speaking something called Balto-Slavo-Germanic, a group you can see on the tree above.
Proto-Germanic proper probably dates from the Jasdorf Culture. The homeland of the proto-Germanics was in northern Germany, around Schleswig-Holstein south into the Lower Elbe region in what is now Saxony-Anhalt and the Hanover area.
It also extended along the Baltic coast of Germany to about the Polish border, down into Brandenburg and Mecklenburg. The original center of the homeland was in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony.
Balto-Slavic is also a very ancient branch of IE. Lithuanian is an ancient IE language that is very conservative and has retained many ancient IE reflexes that have been lost in the rest of IE. Proto-Balto-Slavic probably split around 4000 YBP. Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic split apart about 3400 YBP. Map of the Balto-Slavic homeland. This homeland encompassed Western Ukraine, Belarus and Eastern Poland.
Proto-Slavic, dating from 3400 YBP, seems to have its homeland in Northern and Western Ukraine and in Southern Belarus.
The proto-Baltic homeland dating from the same time frame is about the southern border region of Belarus around the Pinsk Marshes.
The rest of the splits, of Slavic, Italic, Celtic, Indian, Iranian and Germanic into their branches, are pretty well-documented, and all occur within the past 1500-3000 years.
Let us move to some interesting dilemmas about the Indo-Europeans. One is the distribution of R1a associated with the Indo-Europeans.
The map of the R1a lineage showing high concentrations in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
The map of the R1a lineage showing high concentrations in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

The highest levels of this haplogroup are found in Eastern Europe in a narrow band from the Black Sea in the Ukraine through Poland to the Baltic Sea and in Northern India and areas to the northwest around the Hindu Kush and the Pamirs, but that does not mean that these two groups are particularly closely related. Northern Indians are most closely related to Iranians and relatively distantly to Eastern Europeans.
The truth is that this haplogroup is only a signature of a split from around the Aryan-Greco homeland in the Pontic Steppe region discussed above. This left high levels of R1a in Eastern Europe and in north India. High levels in North India are not particularly notable but exist only due to a founder effect. Actually, the highest levels are not found in North India but in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and north Afghanistan.
The high levels found in North India have led some to assume incorrectly that the homeland of the R1a people was in that area, but this is not the case.
A map of R1b DNA distribution. The homeland of the R1b line is the Maykop Culture, shown in the shaded pink region between the Caspian and Black Seas.
A map of R1b DNA distribution. The homeland of the R1b line is the Maykop Culture, shown in the shaded pink region between the Caspian and Black Seas.

R1b levels are highest in Spain and the Western British Isles. The launching point for the R1b seems to have been the Maykop Culture of 5500 YBP. From there, they spread all over Europe.
The Maykop Culture was an early PIE split that existed between the Taman Peninsula just east of the Crimea east to the Dagestan border in the area that includes part of Southern Russia east of the Crimea, Adygea, Karachay-Cherkessia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Ingushetia and Chechnya in the Caucasus.
The center of the culture was around Maykop in Adygea (Circassia). The region is now inhabited by peoples of the Caucasus and is heavily Muslim.
An explanation:

The Proto-Indo-Europeans belonged both R1a and R1b. Their homeland was in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, in what is known as the Kurgan culture (7000-2200 BCE).

The presence of R1b in modern times between the Black Sea and the Caucasus hints at the Maykop culture (3500-2500 BCE) as their most plausible homeland, while the Eurasian steppes to the north were R1a territory. […]

A comparison with the Indo-Iranian invasion of South Asia shows that 40% of the male lineages of northern India are R1a, but only 20% of the female lineages could be of Indo-European origin (H, J, K, T, U).
The impact of the Indo-Europeans was more severe in Europe because European society 4,000 years ago was less developed in terms of agriculture, technology (no bronze weapons) and population density than that of the Indus Valley civilization.
This is particularly true of the native Western European cultures where farming arrived much later than in the Balkans or central Europe. Greece was the most advanced of European societies and was the least affected in terms of haplogroup replacement.
Native European Y-DNA haplogroups (I1, I2a, I2b) also survived better in regions that were more difficult to reach or less hospitable, like Scandinavia, Brittany, Sardinia or the Dinaric Alps[…]
The eastern branch of the R1a steppe people was the Andronovo culture (2300-1000 BCE), around modern Kazakhstan, which correspond to the Indo-Iranian branch of languages. Their migration to the south have resulted in high R1a frequencies in southern Central Asia, Iran and the Indian subcontinent.
The highest frequency of R1a (about 65%) is reached in a cluster around Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan. In India, 15 to 45% of the population is R1a, depending on the region and caste. Over 70% of the Brahmins (highest caste in Hinduism) belong to R1a1, due to a founder effect.


Pokorny, Julius. 1959, 2007. Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary. A Revised Edition of Julius Pokorny’s Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Published on the Internet: Indo-European Language Revival Association.

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

Who Were The Ancient Romans?

This is an interesting question mostly because it would be academic and noncontroversial except that Nordicists have chosen to shove their hateful snouts into the matter and create a bunch of lies.
The proto-Italics, later to become the Romans in part, came from Austria 2900 YBP. No quite knows who Austrians were at that point racially, as Germanics don’t show up in Austria until late in the Roman Empire near the Fall.
A sector of the Nordicists have created a lie to disinherit the Italians of their claim to the Roman Empire. According to this lie, the ruling class of the Romans were pure Germanics, and the rabble/refuse were just a bunch of racially degenerated dagos. They enlist all sorts of nonsensical evidence in favor of this supposition, including looking at statues and paintings and whatnot.
The Nordicist notion stems from their incredulity that a bunch of no good wops could have created one of the greatest empires known to mankind.
It’s interesting that many Nazi racialist authors did not subscribe to the standard Nordicist lie of today. The Nazis were quite clear that the Italians of today were the descendants of the Romans. In fact, Nazi racial hierarchy placed Meds only slightly below Nordics on the racial scale. Both were seen as highly superior races, but the Nordics were seen as a bit better, as supremacists always have to put themselves on top.
Nazi theory held that both Meds and Nords had a lot of good and bad racial tendencies, and held that Meds were superior to Nords in many ways. In particular, the Meds were seen as one of the most, if not the most, creative race in modern times, or possibly ever.
The Nordicist distortion of today stems from the UK and the US. The US was settled by Northern Europeans and the Southern Europeans, including Italians, who immigrated starting 130 years ago were seen as highly inferior on a racial basis. Science has not born this claim out, but it remains a part of US founding stock culture, and it was a motivating factor being the restrictive 1925 Immigration Act.
I don’t know the UK racially very well, but I suspect that they have always looked down on the Continent in general, and probably the Southern Europeans in particular. Not when it comes to partying in Mallorca though I guess.
Anyway, the truth is that modern Nordicists have so distorted even Nazi Nordicism that most modern Nordicists would have probably been booted out of the Nazi Party at the time. I am not trying to romanticize the Nazis here, but in terms of racial science, they were correct in some ways. Contrary to popular nonsense, Nazis did not hold Jews to be inferior. Nazi racialism quite correctly recognized the superiority of the Jews. Instead, they just held that the Jews were evil.
The Nazis employed racialist academics who followed the army on their gruesome deeds. Over by the Caucasus, these academics undertook deep scientific studies that concluded that certain Jewish groups in that area were not racially Jewish, but instead were culturally Jewish. The Nazis were not as insane as everyone says, and they held by the findings of their scientists and saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews on that basis.
The pro-Meds have been battling the Nordicists about this for nearly a century now, and I support the Meds’ side of the argument. From Roman sources we get reports describing Romans in quite the same way as the peoples of Abruzzo to the Po would be described today. Germanics were described as blond, blue and very different looking than Romans.
The only difference between the Romans and the Abruzzo to Po Italians of today is that the people in this region are actually more Germanized today than they were under the Romans! To the South, there have been some changes, including a large injection of Arab, Phoenician, Spanish, Corsican, French (Norman), Greek and Albanian genes. This is most marked in Sicily.
One lie is that the Abruzzo to Po Italians have lots of Black blood in them. To the South, yes, there is some Black blood, but it is minimal. It is most prominent in Sicily at around 5%. From Abruzzo the Po, the % of Black blood is about the same as in Germany, if not less, at around 1.5%.
Academics have stayed out of the debate only to say that the ancient Romans were the same people as modern day Italians.
A similar lie was spread about Greece on the same basis. How could these dumb-ass Southern European inferiors have produced one of the greatest societies in history? It’s obviously not possible, so some mysterious Germanics must have infiltrated that rocky land to surreptitiously ruled over those swarthy inferiors. Once again, statues and whatnot are enlisted in support of this, and Nordicists study art and statues with magnifying glasses claiming to see secret Master Race features in Greek art.
The Meds have gone at them again in this argument, and once again, I side with the Meds.
The Nordicist argument is curious. If Romans and Greeks were secret Master Race types, then obviously the central Italians and Greeks, as largely racially unchanged folks, are their descendants anyway. The argument becomes circular. The Nords try to say that the Central Italians and Greeks underwent some massive racial degeneration after the Falls, but there is no evidence for this.
As with Southern Italians, there seems to be some Black blood in the Greeks, but only about 5%. It appears to have gone in mostly during Ancient Greece, so the argument for racial degeneration doesn’t make sense. The Ancient Greeks were a little bit Black too.
Some Nordicists make a truly insane argument about Ancient Egypt which is almost as insane as the Afrocentric crap about Black Athena.
According to this, some Master Race White types created Egypt, then Egypt underwent racial degeneration with an infusion of Black blood and collapsed into the Hellish Cairo of today, trash dumps everywhere, mangy stray dogs in the streets, and rats about as big as the dogs scurrying through the open air markets.

Garbage in Naples. Descendants of the great Romans? Afraid so. How so? A historian might say that down through time, shit happens.
Garbage in Naples. Descendants of the great Romans? Afraid so. How so? A historian might say that down through time, shit happens.

Not only that, but nothing works, and in order to get hooked up to the non-working system, you have to wait in line forever and pay off a bunch of lazy pricks.
Academics once again stay out of this one, except to say that they think there was continuity between Ancient and modern Egyptians. I saw one piece in the Journal of Physical Anthropology that compared genes of ancient Egyptians with those of modern Egyptians. Amazingly, racially, they were about the same at 91% Caucasian and 9% Black.
The truth is somewhat interesting. While the Afrocentrist notion must be discarded, it’s certainly true that at least historically, a bit of Black blood mixed with mostly White stock has produced some of the greatest societies the world has ever seen. At 90-95% Med Caucasian and 5-10% Ethiopic Black, a mixing bowl for the greatest civilizations man produced was created.
It’s difficult to come up with a theory to explain why this stock did so well, but possibly mixing a bit of one stock to a lot of another produces an excellent genetic set. Anyway, this is how animal and plant breeders have been operating for centuries. It would be surprising if humans were different.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Nice Map of the Roman Empire

Great map of the Roman Empire at its height with original Roman names of all of the provinces.
Great map of the Roman Empire at its height with original Roman names of all of the provinces.

This is a very interesting map. In case you can’t read it very well, a better copy is here. I had no idea that the Romans conquered so far. They conquered “the known world” as it was said at the time. That wasn’t really true, as even the Romans admitted that they did not conquer the Germanic tribes in Germania Magna, Sarmatia, Aethiopia, Iberia, Arabia Felix, Caledonia, Hibernia, etc.
These names are instructive, as these are the places that the Romans did not conquer.
Hibernia was Ireland; to this day, Irish English, which can be very hard to understand, is called Hibernian English. Caledonia for Scotland makes no sense to me, but there is a province in the Solomon Islands in Melanesia called New Caledonia, FWIW.  Iberia for the Caucasus makes no sense either, as Iberia usually means the Spanish Peninsula nowadays.
All of Africa outside North Africa is simply referred to as Aethiopia. Arabia Felix is the Arabian Peninsula. Germania Major (Greater Germany) is the area of the fiercest German tribes; perhaps they were just too much hassle to conquer. Sarmatia is Russia; this means nothing to me.
Now for the provinces. Egypt is Aegyptus. Libya is Creta et Cyrene, apparently a combination province of Crete (Creta) and Cyrene (Libya). Israel/Palestine is Judea. Syria, Lebanon, etc. is Syria. This notion of Greater Syria lives on with Pan-Syrianists such as the Syrian Social Nationalist Party. Iraq is Mesopotamia. Armenia is Armenia, but much larger than today. Bulgaria is Thracia. The regions of Western Turkey are familiar to me, but mean nothing anymore. Romania is Dacia.
The name of Dacia is important. Nordicists claim that some mysterious Northern European superior folks came down to Italy, conquered inferior greasy dagos, and became the ancient White Romans. Like most Nordicist crap, it’s a lie. The Romans, true, did not come from Italy. Instead they came from Dacia.
No one really knows who the Dacians were, but I doubt they were Germans. They probably looked dark like the Romanians of today. This group has also had some Scythian-type Ossetian/Iranian inputs 1600 years ago or so. So the Romans were Southern Europeans.
Italy was Italia, and Sicily was Sicilia. Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, etc. were Dalmatia. This name lives on in the Dalmatian Coast of Croatia. Sardinia and Corsica retain their Roman names. Portugal is Lusitania, and Portuguese speaking nations today are called Lusophone regions. North Africa,  for some reason, is Mauritania – is this a reference to “Moors?” Western France was Aquitania – think Eleanor of Aquitaine.
Southern France was Norbonensis; there is a city called Narbonne in the region today. The Balearic Islands were called Baleares. Northern Greece was Macedonia. A region called Belgica covered northeastern France – think Belgium. The part of Germany known today as the Rhineland was conquered and referred as Germania Inferior and Superior.
The area in and around Switzerland and Southern Germany was referred to as Raetia. The branch of the Romance Language family that today contains Romansch is referred to as Rhaetian. The Southern Germans and Swiss have a large dose of “Roman” in them, and their languages have a Romance influence. I recently met a Bavarian man who looked for all the world like a Frenchman.
England and Wales are Brittania. This name lives in on the British nationalist phrase, “Rule Brittania.”
I left off a number of place names that mean nothing to me. There are also some cities there, but the names are very hard to read. Londonium is London. Salamanca is a now a region in Spain. Roma is Rome, and Syracuse is in Sicily. Carthaga is in Tunisia. Alexandria yet exists in Egypt. Caesarea was a city in northern Israel, now abandoned on the sand dunes. Thessalonika in Northern Greece still exists, as does Antiochia in Turkey (Antioch).
The legend of this map, as you can see, is in German. The shaded area of the Roman Empire is the Romanisches Reich, a nice touch.
Romanisches Reich it was.

Time To Apologize For The Deicide?

In a comment on the We Killed Jesus and We are Proud Of It! post, a Colombian commenter says that I am wrong for suggesting that the Jews apologize for the Deicide:

Apologizing for Deicide? that’s outright moronic. Deicide charges were leveled against the Jews by the early Church fathers, who were conveniently oblivious to the fact that the very first Christians were Jews themselves. And were consistently used as an excuse to persecute the Jews in Europe for centuries. It sounds to me like a lame PC attempt to create a Jewish counterpart to white guilt.

Some of the usual arguments are laid out here. Jesus himself was Jew, and so were those who killed him, so the charge is absurd on its face.
However, Talmudic Judaism, or modern-day Judaism, is clearly the spiritual descendant of the Pharisees. It was the Pharisees and Phariseeism that Jesus and his disciples were fleeing in terror from. Recall the NT sections where the Disciples say, “The Jews are after us!” as they run and hide all over the Galilee.
Any honest Rabbi will tell you that they were hiding from the followers of the Pharisees. The same honest Rabbi will also tell you that Talmudic Judaism is the spiritual descendant of Phariseeism. In fact, a Conservative Rabbi admitted both of those things to me.
Super-Jews make a big deal about Christianity being de facto anti-Semitic by the very nature of the New Testament.
Making Christianity safe for the Abe Foxman crowd would mean excising the entire NT. That leaves Christians with the OT, at which time all of us Christians may as well just to convert to Judaism and get it over with. The fundamentalist Protestants are very Judeophilic, and we can see this in their fetishism of the decrepit and frankly Jewish Old Testament. In that sense, paradoxically, they are less Christian than an NT-only “Jesusist” like me.
In a way, the Super Jews are right. Let’s not kid ourselves. Jesus, as Reform a Jew as ever lived, came, said, “I’m the Messiah, and the Law is abrogated.” The law is the Hebraic Laws and Rules that the Jews live under.
In his revolutionary overturning of this archaic and reactionary code, Jesus offered a new code, one of Mercy. Mercy is clearly absent from much of the OT. The God of the OT is clearly not one of Mercy either; he’s a cruel and capricious fellow, but He’s the God of the Jews, so they can have him.
The God of the NT is a different fellow altogether. He’s forgiving and kind, and the fire and brimstone, the genocides, the wars, the ethnic cleansing, the leveling of cities with fire and turning humans into Dresden-like fried pillars – that’s all under the dam, past and gone.
The Jews were offered a choice – to follow the new Messiah or to be passed over. They didn’t follow him, so their religion was abrogated, and the torch was passed to the new religion, the Christianity. To us Christians, Judaism is old hat. At one time, sure, it was the law of the land all right, but we’ve since moved on.
To us, Judaism is spiritual roadkill. Sure it’s part of our heritage, but so was Homo Erectus. We’ve moved along now. There is no Judeo-Christian religion anymore than there is a Judeo-Muslim religion or an Islamo-Christian religion. They’re just not the same thing. Pat Robertson and all are on theological thin ice shilling for the Jews of Israel. Why not shill for the Hindus or the Muslims? It’s makes about as much sense theologically.
This leads us to Replacement Theology. I’m a follower of this. The Jews have been replaced by the Christians. Judaism has been replaced by Christianity. Further, the Jews no longer get Israel either. After the NT, the (Christian) Church is the New Israel. The Jews contract with that land was abrogated also. Sure, God gave the land to the Jews, but the NT abrogates that deed of title.
Another argument against the Deicide charge is leveled by Jews. Even if we did it, they say, it was a good thing, as the Deicide was necessary for the unfolding of Christianity. Well of course. But that’s not why I say apologizing is a good idea.
The Jewish religion, in particular the Orthodox, has traditionally taken the position that Jesus was a Jewish heretic who was tried in a Jewish court, convicted, and received appropriate punishment. The Talmud is full of hostile references to Jesus. It’s true that Jesus was a Jew, but it’s also true that Talmudic Judaism is the spiritual heir to the Pharisees.
The Jews want it both ways. According to their religion, they state that Jewish was a Jewish heretic who was tried by the Jews and got what he deserved. Then, to the Gentiles, they deny this. Some Orthodox are honest and say, “Hey, we did kill him, and it was a good thing!” This happens quite a bit in Israel, by the way. The usual response of the other Jews is the typical, “Are you trying to start a pogrom?” screeching.
I don’t really care. What’s done is done. But I think it is grossly unfair for the Jews to demand that other religions like the Catholics amend their anti-Jewish teachings while at the same time, the Jews refuse to amend their anti-Christian teachings. But then, it’s just typical Jewish hypocrisy du jour. Hypocrisy goes with Jews like lox goes with cream cheese. Jewish hypocrisy is related to Jewish hyperethnocentrism in that all nationalists are hypocrites. Think about it.
Sure it’s dumb to hold folks responsible for something their ancestors did 2000 years ago, but if the Jews are still crowing about it (the Orthodox are) and if the Jewish religion still stubbornly states, “We did it and what about it?”, an apology certainly makes sense.
As a philosemite, in a way I’m interested in what’s good for the Jews. One thing that’s bad for the Jews is anti-Semitism. My position is that Jews promoting anti-Semitism is bad for the Jews, so don’t do it, Jews. It is in this sense that I advocate an apology and some official amending of Judaism (Is that even possible?) as the Jews demanded of the Pope at Vatican II in 1965.

Nords Versus Meds, Game Starts at 8 Eastern Time

In the post, Albanians Are Neither White Nor Europeans? Lafayette Sennacherib takes issue with some of my anti-Nordicist POV, suggesting that ancient Greece was populated from the North, specifically the Baltics:

…there may turn out to be some truth in the notion that the Myceneans came from the North (though I think it unlikely that many went back).

I mentioned here before that I’d recently come across this book by Felice Vinci: The Baltic Origins of Homer’s Epic Tales.

Homer, as you are no doubt aware, is credited  (it’s not known if he was one or many authors) with the creation of the earliest European literature with his epic tales ‘the Iliad’ about the Trojan war, and ‘the Odyssey’ about the journeys of Odysseus as he tries to find his way home, with a boatload of men, after the war.

Last I heard, the best guess is that it was composed about 1200BC and written down about 7oo BC. Trouble is, there’s a lot of description in Homer, but none of it fits the Mediterranean.

You’ve guessed what’s coming: Felice has matched all the descriptions and journey times and directions to the Baltic. Apparently there was a verifiable drastic climate change before which the Baltic was a lot more user friendly.

I think ( I haven’t read the book yet), from reviews I’ve read, that he places some of Odysseus’ travels quite far afield up the North Sea coast of Norway, and even to the Shetlands and Orkneys and possibly Scotland and Britain.

If you’ve ever seen the ancient underground towns in Shetland or Orkney (the back of beyond these days; in fact even the Romans called them Ultima Thule – the ends of the Earth), which seem to have had efficient plumbing maybe as early as 1500 BC, you can’t help but wonder how such refinements came to be in this most unlikely of places – Felice’s theory would locate them in a lively interlinked maritime world centering on the Baltic.

Of course, this isn’t proven, but I get the impression that some serious people are taking this seriously enough to fund more research.

Felice speculates that deteriorating climatic conditions caused many of these Baltic peoples to migrate south, and that they took their myths and poems with them, and that the reason that some of the names of towns correspond to known and existing Greek sites is that they named places in their new home after places in their old home, as Europeans have so obviously done in the USA, Australia and so on.

Well, I agree that the theory is interesting, but in the long run, none of it really makes sense from a Nordicist POV. Germanic tribes went all over Europe, so the very idea of Med and Nordic doesn’t make a lot of sense. And Meds went all over up into the north too. The two groups totally mixed in with each other. Nordics are part Med and Meds are part Nordic.
Bottom line is that modern Greeks are the same folks as ancient Greeks, no matter where they came from. Modern Italians are the same as the ancient Romans, no matter where the Romans came from.
Nordicists take issue with this, and say that Rome and Greece were created by some glorious Nordic types, and then after the Fall, some kind of mud people* or nigger people* from the South (I guess that means Arabs, North Africans, Ethiopians, Lebanese) came into Greece and Italy and muddied up these beautiful White German folks, creating the present day swarthy Med.
Nordicists are serious assholes!
The ones here in the US really, really, really, really hate Southern Europeans. They think they are inferior greaseball part-Mud*, part-nigger* people. Most US Nordicists say that Meds are not even White.
Anti-Southern European prejudice and discrimination, especially discrimination against Italians and Catholics, is pretty much history in White America, but at one time, this was a prominent trend. Italians have moved into the White Ruling Class, and the Catholic JFK was elected and ruled Camelot 50 years ago. Even the KKK lets Catholics in now, and says let’s let bygones be bygones.
The fact that probably 80% of White nationalists are Nordicists just shows once again how out of it these people really. Hell, these racist baboons are behind the times even in terms of intra-White prejudices. How do you spell “loser”?
If you read the original Nazi racialist authors, they do not say this at all. Say what you will about them, but they pursued this stuff as a science.
They agreed that Meds were a great White people, and that the modern Meds are descendants of the great cultures of Greece and Rome. They listed many attributes of the Meds and said that in many ways, Meds were superior to Nordics.
However, Nordics were also superior to Meds in many ways. When it all tallied up, the Nordics came out on top, but only slightly. To say that the Nazis felt that Meds were inferior is completely mistaken. Meds were a great White people, but Nordics were also great, and Nordics were somewhat greater the Meds. Of course they had to put themselves on top, all Supremacists do.
One thing the Nazi racialist scientists did say was that Meds were very creative, perhaps the most inventive and creative Whites that ever existed, or maybe the most inventive and creative humans that ever existed. They said that Meds were superior in terms of the arts, which is somewhat related.
I concur.
Modern day Nordicists (neo-Nazis in general) who despise and disparage Meds as non-Whites, in all honesty, would have been thrown out of the Nazi Party in Germany! That’s how out of it they are.
This is sort of a peculiarly American and Australian thing – the Nordicist contempt for Meds. I’m not sure if you see it that much in Europe, though people are always going to be rivals.
It does exist in Italy though, where the Padanianists pour scorn on the “part-nigger”* Southerners. The Padanianists also take pride in being “Celtic.”
However, non-racial frustration with the South extends as far south as Abruzze (east of Rome) in Italy. Even in Abruzze, they think that they work hard and they don’t get all their tax money back. Instead it goes to the unproductive South, who take more in revenues than they contribute in taxes.
Further, in Abruzze, there is frustration that any tax money sent South in the form of revenues is wasted, as it just goes to the Camorra (Mafia) anyway. The notion of the South, and that means Naples south (Naples is thoroughly Camorra-overrun) as being the Land of the Camorra is not misplaced.
The Camorra for all intents and purposes practically run the show down there. Police try to fight them, but they are overwhelmed. Most of the politicians are paid off, and those who are not might get shot. Judges and investigative journalists are routinely threatened and gunned down.
There was also something like this North-South rivalry in the former Yugoslavia, with the notion being that Slovenia and Croatia were the economic engines of the place, and everything south just took in more revenues than they paid out in taxes.
In the north of Spain, there is some pride once again in being “Celtic”, but I am not aware that Northern Spaniards hate Southern Spaniards all that much, or at all.
Some of the north, especially around Leon and Asturias, is in bad shape economically, and I’m sure they take more in revenues than they pay in taxes, so the North-South thing doesn’t really work.
In Western Asturias in particular, the region is depopulating, and most towns are losing population. Even wolves are coming back to the hills and foraging in garbage dumps outside of towns. In 20 years, many villages in Western Asturias may be effectively abandoned.
The economic and industrial engines of Spain are in the Basque Country and Catalonia (industry in the Basque area, corporate offices in Catalonia). This is one of the main reasons why Spain is dead-set against having these regions secede.
*Used sardonically.

The Peopling of Indonesia

Repost from the old site. Updated September 20, 2016. I am republishing this post because I have significantly reworked the genetics of the Indonesians. Instead of being mostly Austronesians from Taiwan, I now say they are mostly related to an ancient Melanesian Dai group from SE China that came 10-20,000 years ago. This group imposed itself on the original people, who were Papuans.
Later, Austronesians came through, leaving languages but only some genes.
The breakdown of Indonesians is approximately 70% Ancient Dai (Melanesian), 15% Austronesians from Taiwan (probably mostly Paiwan and Ami) and 15% Papuan.
The ancient Dai appear to have undergone the same progression towards Mongoloid as occurred with Melanesians throughout Inland SE Asia. In island SE Asia (Melanesia) and the East of Indonesia, this progression was much less complete, so people still have strong Melanesian elements. The degree to which some Melanesians resemble Negritos is rather striking.
To sum up, the new data indicates that most Indonesians are not related primarily to Taiwanese aborigines as originally thought. Instead they are related to Daics from far SE China who left their homeland during post-glacial flooding that occurred after 18,000 years ago. Only 20% of the Indonesian line comes from recent (past 4,000 years) Taiwanese aborigine immigrants.
The prehistory of Indonesia is an interesting question, but it is little studied.

Typical Indonesian men. The one on the left looks very Chinese or Filipino. The one on the right looks a little different. Indonesians are dark, but the place is right on the equator, so this is to be expected.

Very early man, Homo Erectus, has been found in the islands dating way back.
A multiregional theory has been suggested for the evolution of man in Indonesia, China and maybe other areas. This theory has been rejected, however there may be some continuity in China with older forms dating back 120,000 years or so. The Chinese, Japanese and now Indonesians all want to say they came from a different monkey.
The theory is also very popular with White Nationalists who are extremely insulted by the idea of being descended from African Blacks. In Indonesia and China, these ideas have more to do with the spread of idiotically antiscientific nationalist-based theories than anything else.
In Indonesia, the nation’s top archaeologist deliberately destroyed bones of Homo Florensis recently in spite over the rejection of his pet theory, that the Homo Erectus relative that lived in modern times are just modern humans who are microencephalic. This theory seems crazy but is making the rounds in peer-reviewed journals nevertheless.
Nationalism and science has never worked well, with some particularly gruesome results especially in the past century. Florensis is a tiny midget of an early man who is a different species from us. They may have lived up until 150 years ago, but the hard evidence so far shows they lived until 13,000 years ago at the latest. I believe they lived until the arrival of the Europeans. It is possible some may yet exist to this day.
There are a lot of questions about whether or not Florensis and locals bred in. Some of the locals are very short, and some even think they may have Florensis like features. Locals say that the Little People are their ancestors.
The Little People would come to their villages and hide in the forest watching them. Locals would leave food for the Little People in baskets, and the Little People would come when no one was around and take the food – they were described as very shy. It is amazing that such a primitive man could live in such proximity to modern Homo without genocidal results.
In the past, contacts between more modern civilizations and more primitive ones usually had genocidal results. Examples include Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Africa, the Americas, Siberia, and probably other places.
Before Florensis, there is Java Man, who dates back possibly to 2 million years. It is due to the prominence of Java Man that the Indonesian “scientists” have indulged in their childish and petty behavior. Actually, the Indonesian case above is more complicated than that – the destroyer of the skulls is the grand old man of Indonesian archeology, and he cannot be touched.
There are a number of younger archaeologists there who think the man is an old fool, which he is, but no can do a thing about him.
The question of Homo Erectus being put aside, we now turn to the development of modern Homo in Indonesia. Here, very little is known for some reason, but we do have that 33,000 yr. old find in the Malukus. These people are called Melanesians for lack of a better word, but it also appears that there were cultural contacts with Australians across the straights. I believe that a better term for these early people is Papuans.
At this time, Melanesians were probably generalized all throughout SE Asia.
Sometime around 10-15,000 years ago, these Papuans populated most of the Mulukus. The nature of the aforementioned contacts with the Australians, genetic or otherwise, is not known, but that such early modern man had such excellent boats is stunning. Much is made by racists of the primitiveness and low IQ’s of Aborigines.
However, we should note the profound cultural achievement it took to make those boats to get to Australia in the first place. But we had great boats when we first left the African Horn at Somalia and Djibouti, went to Yemen and moved along the coast all the say to SE Asia, stopping along the way in Iran, Yemen, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, New Guinea, Melanesia and Australia.
There is a chain of Negritos in every one of these places, probably the last remainders of the first modern men that left Africa 60-70,000 years. In Australia, the Negritos went to the Aborigine Major Race; in Papua, they went to the Papuan Major Race, in Melanesia to the Melanesian Minor Race. However, recent data suggests that the Melanesian race is extremely diverse, so it may have to be re-evaluated.
Some analyses show Melanesians clustering fairly close to Papuans, yet others show Papuans as a vast major race, tied with Aborigines as the most diverse on Earth after Africans. They are also some of the furthest away from Africans.
Whites are more closely related to Africans than Papuans are, yet everyone from Afrocentrists to White Nationalists wants to say Papuans are Black people. In the North, they went on to form the early basis for all members of the Asian Macro-race today.
The standard history is that some unknown Melanesians, about whom we know little, were the original inhabitants of Indonesia. Recent research sheds some light on the genesis of these Melanesians.
Turner, a specialist in teeth, using dental morphological traits, hypothesized that two migrations originated from central China about 20-30,000 YBP (years before present).
One group, the Sinodonts, expanded northward into China, Siberia and across the Bering land bridge to the New World. The second group, the Sundadonts, moved southward into Southeast Asia and Indonesia, and later through Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
This is probably the group that gave rise to the Melanesians.
But the picture is more complicated than that.
Indonesia was settled independently by ancient Dai. These Dai came from from Hainan and Guangxi in far southern China about 10-20,000 YBP. They may have left due to rising sea levels that flooded their lands. The ancient Dai must have looked like Melanesians.
The people most closely resembling the ancient Dai are the Taiwan aborigines. It is true that the Indonesians do not much resemble the Taiwan aborigines genetically, and their genetic structure in general is quite a bit different from Filipinos.
However, this study does not explain how Indonesians came to speak Austronesian languages obviously derived ultimately from Taiwan.
It is clear to me that when the Austronesians pushed through Indonesia several thousand years ago, the locals adopted the Austronesian tongues of the Austronesian colonizers, abandoning whatever tongues they were speaking at the time (I figure Papuan languages).
Recent tests indicate that the Indonesians derive 71% from the ancient Dai, 14% from the Taiwan aborigines (Austronesians) and 15% from Papuans. This study looks at Y chromosomes. 10-20,000 years ago, these ancient Dai went from Hainan and Guangxi (their homeland) to Taiwan to become the Taiwan aborigines and also on to Indonesia in two separate waves.
They probably genetically swamped and colonized the native peoples, who were probably Papuans.
Today, only the Malukus identify as Melanesians, despite the fact that there are Melanesians on Alor and in other places. On Timor, Sumba and Flores, there are people who are at least part-Melanesian who do not identify as Melanesian. Some of these people are up to 80% Melanesian, as in Alor.
The standard history of the rest of the islands such as Sulawesi, Sumatra and Bali is that Austronesians came 4,000 years ago and pushed the native Melanesians to the east. However, this must be wrong. Instead of pushing Melanesians east, they bred in with them.
Most Indonesians are an example of a race that used be common all through SE Asia, including Vietnam – the Ancient SE Asian Race. This race was widespread throughout SE Asia 2-4,000 years ago. It is Mongoloid with considerable Australoid admixture.

Tsunami victims in Aceh on Sumatra. They are quite dark as you can see, but that is a pigmentation process to enable females to store folic acid for pregnancy in order to give birth to viable infants. Protection against sunburn is an interesting theory, but sunburn, even melanoma, does not kill you before you have children.
They are members of the Island SE Asian Race. They may have an origin in part with the Paiwan aborigines of Taiwan.

The Sumba and probably all of the other Lesser Sunda Islands are inhabited by people who are a mixture between Austronesians from Taiwan and native Melanesians – Ancient SE Asians, as described above. Timor also has Papuans and Polynesians. Early man arrived on Timor as early as 40,000 years ago. These people must have been Papuans.
The Mulukus such as Babar and Ambon are inhabited by mixtures of Austronesians from Taiwan and Papuans in the case of Ambon and Melanesians in the case of Babar.
4,000 YBP, the Austronesians arrived in Indonesia from Taiwan. Mostly, these were the Ami, but there is a possibility that other Taiwanese aborigines were there also, in particular, the Paiwan.
These were the Austronesians, the greatest mariners of all time, who settled the Philippines, Indonesia, coastal New Guinea, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. There are even said to have moved into mainland SE Asia, particularly Malaysia. In that case, they probably went to Sumatra first and then moved across the water to Malaysia.

These Indonesian Muslim women praying look very much like Malays. It is not known where they are from. They may be members of the Malay Race found on Java and Borneo in Indonesia described at the end of the post.

They even seem to be a major component of the Vietnamese. Everywhere they went, the Austronesians brought a cultural revolution with them, often upgrading existing cultures, certainly so in the case of New Guinea.
Austronesians arrived in Indonesia at least 4,000 years ago by boat, probably from the Philippines, where they already probably had a mature settlement. However, the Austronesians show up in Timor as early as 5,000 years ago, so 4,000 years BP may be too late.
Next, at least on Timor, and probably throughout Indonesia, a wave of Proto-Malays moved through. A group settled Bali 5,000 years ago who may have been Proto-Malays. Proto-Malays are also important in the settlement of the Philippines and Malaysia.
The proto-Malays who settled in the Philippines were said to be short and very hairy. The hairiness is odd for people living in a hot climate. If this description is true, I suggest that the Proto-Malay may have been an Ainu-like people, the Proto-NE Asians. A Southern origin is possible for the Ainu. The pre-Ainu, the Jomon, are said to have origins in Thailand 18,000 years ago. They got on boats and sailed to Japan.
These hairy Proto-Malays may have been related to the pre-Jomon in Thailand long ago. Proto-Malays show up in the Philippines over 5,000 years BP, before the arrival of the Austronesians. The Proto-Malays who settled the Philippines and Indonesia are said to have had an origin in South China and Inland SE Asia.
However, in Malaysia, the Proto-Malay are said to have been created in Malaysia 3,000 years ago as Austronesians bred in with existing Senoi, an Australoid, Negrito-like, or best of all, Veddoid people. The Proto-Malays are poorly understood, and some of what is said about them is contradictory.
Austronesians show up in Sulawesi, Java, the Mulukus and Borneo 3,500 years ago. Austronesians moved from Borneo to Sumatra 2,500 years ago, and from there up into Malaysia to become a component of the Malay Race.

A beautiful woman on Samosir Island on Sumatra. She may be a Toba Batak, who are members of the Micronesian Race. Unless I am hallucinating, I think that many Micronesians look something like this. A possible explanation is that the Batak are the remains of those Austronesian-Melanesian mixes who populated Polynesia and then left Polynesia to populate Micronesia, but the situation is quite confused.
In the background is one of the famous Toba Batak bark houses. She is in traditional dress. Note the resemblance to a Filipina. The Batak, like the Sea Dayak of northern Borneo and the Nesiot and Igorot of the Philippines, are linked to the first Austronesian wave out of Taiwan 5,000 years ago. This group is also linked to the Paiwan tribe on Taiwan.

A cultural revolution in Indonesia called Đông Sơn was paralleled by similar developments throughout SE Asia. This culture was centered in the Red River Valley of northern Vietnam and northward in Southern Kwangzi and Kwangtung of China, while being generalized throughout Indonesia, showing up about 3,000 years ago. Originally, the Đông Sơn were said to be Austronesians, but the latest thinking is that this is an ancient Tai group.
Wet-rice cultivation spread throughout the islands with Đông Sơn, but the native Melanesians were already engaging in wet-rice cultivation an incredible 10,000 years ago, making Indonesia one of the earliest sites for agriculture on Earth.
The Đông Sơn culture was developing in Vietnam from 2,200-2,800 YBP.
The Đông Sơn kept buffaloes and pigs, fished, grew rice and, in a clue to their Austronesian nature, sailed in long dugout canoes. An Iron Age people, they utilized metallurgy to make fine bronze objects, including drums and figurines.
Racially, the Đông Sơn peoples belonged to the Indonesian or Ancient Southeast Asian group – a Southern Mongoloid with strong Australoid elements (Cuong, 1996).
Đông Sơn also had elements of Dai culture from Yunnan and Laos, Khmer culture from Cambodia, Tibeto-Burman culture, and the prehistoric Plain of Jars culture in Laos. So all of these elements from mainland SE Asia and Southern China went into the stew that became Indonesian culture.
Now, Indonesians are members of either the SE Asian Major Race, the Oceanian Major Race or the Papuan Major Race. For the most part, they seem to be some sort of a mixture between ancient Daic Melanesians and Austronesian Chinese (Taiwanese).
Haplogroups C, E and F in Figure 1 here, seem to have a southern origin. These strains are apparent on a minor scale in Java, Borneo and Sulawesi. But in Southern Borneo, they reach levels up to 40%. Haplogroups G, H and L are also associated with Taiwan, the Philippines and to a lesser extent South China.
L is clearly the Ami of Taiwan, but G and H are less well-understood. This paper suggests that they have a southern (Melanesian) genesis, but that does not make much sense. H is present at high levels in the Taiwanese Atayal, Bunum and Paiwan, and G is present at high levels in the Bunum and the Paiwan. G is at even higher levels in Javans.

Some beautiful typical Indonesian women with the usual phenotype. Note the resemblance with Thais, Filipinas, and possibly Khmers. These women are Torajans, who look somewhat like the Batak people pictured above. 

On a principle coordinates map here (Figure 4), Indonesians cluster close to Filipinos, the Ami of Taiwan and Southern Chinese.
Indonesians today constitute several races. Papuans and Melanesians were mentioned above. The Toba Batak are Micronesians, but how they ended up in northern Sumatra is a mystery.
Indonesians on Java and northern Borneo are members of the Malay Race, also found in Malaysia. Indonesians from Sumatra, Bali and the Sea Dayak of northern Borneo, along with the Paiwan aborigines from Taiwan, are members of the Island SE Asian Race.
The Sea Dayak are also linked anthropologically with the first wave of Austronesians out of Taiwan 5,000 years ago, along with the Nesiot and Igorot in the Philippines. The suggestion is that the first wave of Austronesians may have been related to the Paiwan tribe.
This clustering is odd, and suggests that the Paiwan, in addition to the Ami, may have been among the Austronesian seafarers who populated Indonesia.

Click to view details. Map showing the Paiwan, Atayal, Bunum and Ami aborigines of Taiwan. The Paiwan seem to have a relationship with the Sea Dayak of North Borneo, the Balinese, and the Sumatrans. This indicates that the Paiwan, located on the lower right on the map, may have helped to settle Indonesia as Austronesians along with the Ami who are usually associated with Austronesians. Note that both the Paiwan and the Ami were properly positioned to colonize island SE Asia.

The Indonesians of Sulawesi, the Lesser Sundas and Borneo are members of the mainstream Indonesian Race.


Capelli, C., Wilson, J.F., Richards, M., Stumpf, M.P.H., Gratrix, F., Oppenheimer, S., Underhill, P., Pascali, V.L., Ko, T.M., and Goldstein, D.B. (2001). A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania. American Journal of Human Genetics 68:432-443.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, A. Piazza. (1994). History and Geography of Human Genes . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Cuong, N.L. 1996. Anthropological Research on Đông Sơnian Skeletons (in Vietnamese). Hanoi.
Li H, Wen B, Chen SJ, Su B, Pramoonjago P, Liu Y, Pan S, Qin Z, Liu W, Cheng X, Yang N, Li X, Tran D, Lu D, Hsu MT, Deka R, Marzuki S, Tan CC, Jin L. 2008. Paternal Genetic Affinity Between Western Austronesians and Daic Populations. BMC Evol Biol. 8(1):146.
Jablonski, N. and Chaplin, G. (2000). The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. Journal of Human Evolution.

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

The Peopling of the Philippines

Repost from the old site. Updated April 2, 2012.
The peopling of the Philippines is a bit better understood than the peopling of Indonesia described in my another post. At least we know that most of the Philippines was first settled long ago by Negritos.

An Aeta Negrito woman of the Philippines. The Aeta live mostly in Northern Luzon. White Nationalists and Afrocentrists both insist that these folks are Black people, but they are very distant from African Blacks. White people are much closer to Blacks than these Negritos. Genetically, these people resemble the Filipinos they live with.Their skulls resemble other Australoid types such as Papuans and Aborigines. Genetically, they are classed as Asians. They are part of the Southeast Asian Major Race. Their minor race is known as the Philippines Negrito Race. It includes the Ati, Aeta and, strangely, the Palau of Micronesia.

There is also another Negrito race in the Philippines – the Mamanwa Philippines Negrito Race. The woman and child above are both Mamanwas. The woman has the typical woolly hair, but the baby has the wavy, Veddoid-like hair seen in many Mamanwas.
The Mamanwa are a group of Philippine Negritos from northeastern Mindanao that are very different from all of the rest of the Negritos in the area. They live in Surigao del Sur in northeastern Mindanao, especially near Mount Hilong-Hilong.
They are thought to be the last remains of the original Negritos to move into the Philippines. There are considerable differences in stature and blood proteins between the Mamanwas and the other Negritos, and they may represent separate migrations.
Excellent photos of modern-day Mamanwas, a group of only 5,000 or so people, can be seen here. I cannot help but notice the resemblance to the Veddoid people of India and Sri Lanka and the Senoi of Malaysia. A few have woolly Negrito hair, but look at how many have the wavy Veddoid hair.
The Mamanwa language seems to be in good shape, judging by the figure that only 7% of the Mamanwa can read and write in their second language. Most Philippine Negrito languages are in bad if not terrible shape; the Mamanwa probably benefit from isolation in the jungle.
Here is a linguistics text on Mamanwa. This called a “text”, in this case a “text” of Mamanwa. It means it is a snippet of Mamanwa, with English translation usually written interlineally so we can see not only what the text means, but what the parts of each word mean too, as even the words are divided into morphemes and translated as best they can be.
The text in most primitive groups usually has to do with myths, legends or stories of the ethnic group, rather than stories about day to day behavior. In this case, it is interesting that the Mamanwa, the oldest Negritos on the Philippines, have a story about the time of their ancestors, when the Mamanwa were “like children”. I guess this means that the early Mamanwa had not reached a very high level of civilization.
Sometimes these stories seem silly or boring to me, but usually they have a lot of meaning for the group who tells them.

Unlike many other places where the Negritos seem to have died out or transcended to other forms, in the Philippines they still exist in a relatively pristine form, even if they are going extinct, culturally, linguistically and probably racially.
Although some give the Negrito population at as low as 32,000, I say that there are 119,606 Negritos left in the Philippines, most of whom are still speaking Negrito languages, based on my estimate from here. The total Negrito population, including those who have given up on their native languages, is not known. They are found throughout the archipelago in various types.
They long ago lost their original languages and now speak Austronesian languages related to the Austronesian settlers who began arriving 5,000 years ago. Philippine Negritos have bred in heavily with standard-issue Filipinos such that the Negritos are now closer to Filipinos than to any other group.

A Dumagat Negrito woman from northern Luzon with her family. The hair at first looks like the Afro a kinky-haired African can grow, but it is actually woolly and not kinky. Dumagat is a generic name for speakers of many Negrito languages in northern Luzon.

On the other hand, Filipinos do not seem to have much Negrito in them. Genetically, we can see only tiny traces of the original Negritos in the Filipino genome. Similar traces can be seen in Micronesians and probably in Malays and Indonesians. These traces range from .02 to .11% – truly minuscule.
Anthropologically, Filipino skulls look SE Asian. Nor do Filipinos look Negrito. In appearance they resemble other Austronesians like Taiwanese aborigines, Indonesians and Malays.
While Philippines Negrito genes look Filipino, Negrito skulls look Australoid, clustering with Aborigines, the Ainu, Tamils, Aborigines, the Sakai of Malaysia, Papuans, Melanesians and Fuegian and Pericu Amerindians.
The Negritos have long been a small group in the Philippines, and the other Filipinos have long dwarfed them in population. Hence, a small amount of inbreeding quickly produced many Filipino genes in Negritos but few Negrito genes in Filipinos.

A Manobo, possibly an Agusan Manobo, man in traditional dress. Most Manobos today wear Western clothing. Some, like the ones who live near the Mamanwa in Surigao del Sur in northeast Mindanao, live off the forest and are being badly affected by deforestation. The Agusan Manobo have at least 2% Negrito genes, the highest level reported for any non-Negrito Filipino group in the Philippines.
Traditionally, the Manobos are considered to be among the Nesiot Austronesians. 54% of Agusan Manobo can read and write in their native language, which has 60,000 speakers. That is a pretty impressive figure for such an isolated group.
A very difficult linguistics paper on Agusan Manobo is available here. It deals with a subfield called discourse analysis, something I never studied and hence don’t really understand very well.
It analyzes language at the discourse level – beyond sounds (phonology), parts of words (morphology), words (lexicology), and sentences (syntax). It analyzes narratives and tries to locate patterns and truths about the way that humans use language to make narratives and tell stories. Believe it or not, the rules and patterns of language work at the narrative level too.
The Agusan Manobo allowed husbands to have multiple wives, common in many primitive cultures. This was usually relegated to those men who had the most money. In this tribe, only women can be religious leaders, which is interesting and resembles the Kalash of Pakistan. The Druze of Lebanon and Israel also have many female religious leaders. I think this is a great idea as I have been worshiping females all my life.

Some Filipino populations, such as the Manobos, described above, that have a somewhat higher level of Negrito genes, but even that level is very small, around 2%. The Manobos live scattered all through Mindanao, but some of the Agusan Manobo live next to the Mamanwas in Surigao del Sur and clearly there has been some interbreeding.

A cute Dumagat Negrito girl trying to read a book. Looking at her hair and features, she is clearly heavily mixed in with Filipino.

Most Filipinos have few if any Negrito genes. There are some Filipinos with Negrito ancestry, and this is readily observable in their woolly or kinky hair and very dark complexion.

A full-grown Ati woman. The Ati live on Panay Island, where they number about 1,500. Their language is still alive. I actually think she is attractive. She’s definitely cute in a child-like way anyway. Note the classical woolly hair of the Philippine Negritos. This is not the same hair as the kinky hair of US Blacks. Other Negritos in the Andaman Islands have peppercorn hair like the Bushmen of Africa.

There are many photos in the older literature of Filipino-Negrito half-breeds, and there is probably still some interbreeding going on. There is a lot of discrimination against Negritos in the Philippines.

A photo of a Negrito man, an Ati from Negros Island, from an anthropological text published around 1916. This text had many photos of mixed Negrito-Filipino types. The Ati of Negros have apparently gone extinct.

On Luzon there is a regular festival in honor of the local Negritos. Almost everyone at the festival is a non-Negrito. A few Negritos wander around the crowd begging and are treated with contempt and ridicule by their non-Negrito brethren.

In a sign that the Negritos may be getting treated better in the Philippines, Juliet Chavez, a Dumagat Negrito, recently won a beauty contest. She is not bad looking.

One of my Filipino contacts told me that the best description of the Filipino attitude towards Negritos is that they do not even exist.
The Philippine Negritos are related to the first groups out of Africa 60-70,000 years ago. They left via the Horn of Africa, got on boats and crossed over to Yemen, then went on boats or walked along the shore along the Indian Ocean to Iran, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Malaysia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, New Guinea, Indonesia and Australia.

The journey taken by early man out of Africa 70,000 years ago. It makes the most sense to think that people migrated along the coast, especially in desert regions. Today in Oman, almost all towns are located along the coast.
There were widespread mangrove forests all along this route back then, though most of them have since died out. There’s plenty to eat along the coast, and the weather is much milder. A journey inland through deserts by such primitive people may have been deadly. Probably the first people undertaking this epic voyage, to which we are all indebted, were the Negritos.

It is generally accepted that Negritos or pre-Negritos probably arrived in the Philippines 30,000 years ago. Findings in caves on Palawan include a 22,500 year old skull called Tabon Man. The skull most resembles modern-day Ainu and Tasmanian people – hence, the Tabon Man people were an Australoid or Aborigine-type people. They were not Negritos.
However, there is also a fragment of a human tibia bone dated 47,000 years ago, so Negritos or pre-Negritos must have been present in the Philippines nearly 50,000 years ago. These caves show habitation going back, some say, 50,000 years.
Finds at the Tabon Caves are interesting in that giant tortoises and even elephants are found there, animals that have since died out on the Philippines.
At other sites, boars, deer, giant and pygmy elephants and rhinoceros have been found. Presently, large mammals are rare to lacking on the archipelago, a common characteristic of islands.
Some archaeologists believe that an even earlier man was present on the Philippines up to 250,000 years ago. This “Dawn Man” is thought to be related to Peking Man and Java Man, that is, he is a variety of Homo Erectus. No bones of this man have been found, but that has not prevented archaeologists from strangely speculating about his appearance.
Dr. Otley Beyer, an American anthropologist, is the one who postulated the existence of Dawn Man.
But findings at Tabon Cave date back at most 50,000 years, not 250,000 years.
Nevertheless, there are what some say are human artifacts in the Cagayan Valley on Luzon dating back 500,000 years, so Otley may have been onto something. Other reports indicate these tools date back 800,000 years, in the range of Java Man.
Others investigating similar sites in the Philippines question whether or not these are really tools, but even these people describe their own clear human artefactual finds as Acheulean and Lower Paleolithic.
These inhabitants must have been Homo Erectus, and were probably related to Java Man and possibly to Peking Man. Acheulean dates from 100,000 to 1.8 million years ago, and Lower Paleolithic spans from 120,000 to 2.5 million years ago. Clearly, the use of these terms by these Cagayan doubters means that even they feel that Homo was in the Philippines at least 120,000 years ago.
Palawan is at the very far end of the Philippines near Indonesia.
Indonesia has been inhabited by Homo derivatives for 2 million years. The theory is that Palawan was at one time connected to Borneo, and early man came to the Philippines via this land bridge.

A Batak Negrito woman of Palawan Island, possibly related to some of the first Negritos to show up in the Philippines. The Palawan Batak number 2,041, and about 1/2 the population speak the language. Note the woolly hair. Parts of Palawan near Tabon Cave are still pretty sparsely populated. Although Tabon Cave is now right on the seashore, it used to be 25-30 miles inland. Only 10% of Philippine archaeological sites have been dug up, and many of those are being looted.
All artifacts and bones have to be shipped out of the Philippines to more developed countries to be analyzed and then shipped back, since the Philippines, with its semi-feudal capitalist model, lacks the modern facilities to analyze artifacts. This is the one great thing Mao did for China – he built a modern country. Mao’s achievement is best seen in comparisons like this one. This blog supports the NPA in the Philippines.

The caves of Tabon show evidence of jar burial connected with the Plain of Jars in Laos and other sites in Sri Lanka. This is probably a Negrito culture in Sri Lanka and Laos.
The Negritos probably came to the Philippines from Malaysia, where they existed 50,000 years ago, down the Malay Peninsula, over to Borneo and up to Palawan in the Philippines, then to the rest of the islands. A map of land bridges in the area 50,000 years ago is here.
Today, the Negritos are known as Ati, Aeta, Agta, Arta, Atta, Alta and Ita, among other names. The word appears to be not their own name for themselves but an appellation placed on them by the surrounding Filipinos. In Austronesian languages, a word like ita often means “black”.

Aeta kids in the Philippines. Some of them look almost like Aborigines. The girl on the far right has a lot of Filipino blood based on her hair and features. The cute girl on the second to left is very heavily admixed with Filipino blood.

They practiced a Stone Age culture up until modern times.

A Pugot Negrito hunter of Southern Luzon with a small deer he has killed, in a photo from a travel guide in 1987. Note that he is clad only in a loincloth. They live around Quezon Province south of Manila and speak a language called Southern Alta, which has about 1,000 speakers.

Today, their lands have been invaded and stolen by non-Negrito Filipinos, and the Negritos labor as peasants on the lands of the Filipinos. Many are unemployed, and cultural collapse is evident. Marriages are unstable, domestic abuse is common, drunkenness is omnipresent, and watching pornography is a pastime. The languages are in a state of Language Death.
In the past few decades, there have been quite a few murders of Negritos by Filipino settlers. There have been few, if any, prosecutions for these crimes.

The Tiruray of Cotabato in Southern Mindanao . They are also known as the Ata and the Upland Bagobo. They may be related to Negritos, but they are clearly quite mixed. Traditionally, they are considered to be part of the second wave of Nesiot Austronesians from Taiwan. They are quite dark.
Being short and dark is an advantage in very hot climates. Dark skin avoids skin damage from UV waves and prevents the destruction of folic acid in the woman’s body during pregnancy, lack of which kills a high percentage of fetuses. Being short enables one to dissipate heat more quickly in a very hot climate. A large body quickly overheats in such a climate.The Tiruray language is in excellent shape. All 50,000 Tiruray speak it, and the literacy rate in Tiruray is 49%.

After the Negritos, two more possibly Australoid groups came to the Philippines, both poorly understood.
Traditional Philippine anthropology says that the Australoid-Sakais came first, and then the proto-Malay. It’s possible that it may have been the other way around, if their arrival in the Philippines mirrored their arrival in Australia.
My working of events reverses the traditional model and postulates that the proto-Malay appeared first, and then the Australoid-Sakais. The proto-Malay were short and very hairy – were they related to the Ainu? It is not known if they were Australoid or not. The nature of the proto-Malay is completely unclear.
A very hairy and early Asian seems to imply someone related to the Ainu. The proto-Ainu were in Thailand 18,000 years ago as the Jomon, when they got on boats and moved up to Japan. In Malaysia, the proto-Malay are the product of Austronesians from Taiwan breeding in with Veddoid Senoi.
It is not known if the proto-Malay described in the peopling of the Philippines are the same people as those in Malaysia, but these people do not seem to be hairy at all.
It seems more logical that the proto-Malay described here may have been the same Murrayan Jomonese-Ainu who came to Australia 15,000-20,000 years ago, possibly from Thailand, later mixed with the Carpinterians, and went on to become the Aborigines. As the Philippines is on the way from Thailand to Australia, it’s conceivable they could have moved into the Philippines along the way.
Australoid-Sakais were the next group to come to Philippines after the proto-Malay. The Sakais are the same as the Senoi in Malaysia.
The Senoi are the subject of the most flagrant yet little known anthropological frauds of our time – the Senoi Dream Theory fraud. A discussion goes beyond the scope of this post, but this exhaustive site fills in all the blanks.
They seem to be a part-Veddoid group with links to the Veddoids of India and Sri Lanka. They also seem to have some roots in Southern China 5,000 years ago. It appears that whatever movements brought them to Malaysia may have carried them over to the Philippines. The Sakai mixed in heavily with the Negritos.
It is quite possible that this is the same group as the Carpinterian Australoids who left India 10,000-15,000 years ago and went to Australia to mingle with the Murrayan Australoids and become the Aborigines. As the Philippines is on the way from southern India to Australia, it’s conceivable they could have stopped by the Philippines along the way.
All of these early Australoid groups – the Sakai, the proto-Malay and the Negritos – seem to have left little trace on the Filipinos of today.
The next group to come to the Philippines were the Nesiots. Some say the Nesiots were Austronesians from Taiwan; others say they came from Indonesia. Wherever they came from, their ancestors are the Tboli of Mindanao, Apayaos, Gaddangs, Ibanags, Lumad and Kalingas of Northern Luzon; the Tagbanuas of Palawan; and the Bagobos, Manobos, Mandayans, Bukidnons, Tirurays and Sabanuns of Mindanao.

A Tboli tribal from South Cotabato Province in Southwest Mindanao. These people are said to be proto-Malays who arrived even before the Austronesians who came to the Philippines 5,000 years ago. No one really knows where these proto-Malays came from. Some say they came from Indonesia, but that seems dubious. Perhaps genetics can sort all this out.
The Tboli language is in excellent shape, with 95,000 speakers, and there are 10,000 Tboli monolinguals. Tboli is spoken freely and everywhere by the group. Their literacy rate in Tboli is 50-60%, excellent for such a small language.
This document, Figurative Uses of ‘Breath’ in Tboli, is a linguistics text dealing with the field of Semantics, or the meaning of words. It’s easily readable by any reasonably educated reader of this blog, and you might find it interesting to dip into it.
In Tboli, one may combine the noun “breath” with 53 different adjectives and verbs to create different expressions of emotions, characteristics, or new verbs. Lengun nawa – “coffin breath” – worry, anxiety – is a cool example. More at the link.

The first wave of Nesiots came 5,000 years ago. They were tall and thin, and had light skin, deep set eyes, aquiline noses and thin lips. It is common to say that these people were part-Caucasian, but there is little evidence of this. Some of the Mangyan of Mindoro today do look somewhat Caucasian.

An Igorot of Luzon. They have a distinctive appearance that most Filipinos can recognize. These are among the last groups of Austronesians out of Taiwan. These people are also known as Bontoc, and speak two different languages, Central Bontoc and Northern Kankanay. Together these groups number 110,000. Note the terraced rice fields. Rice cultivation was brought to the Philippines by the Austronesians when they first arrived maybe 5,000 years ago from Taiwan.
Some Bontoks look quite Negrito – the woman in this photo obviously has Negrito blood.
An Alangan Mangyan woman from north-central Mindoro.The language has 7,694 speakers and is in good shape. Some say these people may be related to Negritos, but that is not proven. I have a friend on Mindoro who says she likes the Mangyan but prefers not to deal with them when they come into Calapan City where she stays sometimes. Asked why not, she said it is because they smell bad.
They live pretty primitive lives via slash and burn agriculture in the jungles of Mindoro, but maybe they don’t bathe all that much. They come into the cities now and then to buy stuff. The men, even today, are often clad only in a loincloth.

A second wave came later. They were shorter, bulkier and darker, with thick lips, wide noses and heavy jaws. As these groups are also related to the Sea Dayak of Borneo and the Batak of Sumatra anthropologically, and the Paiwan Taiwanese aborigines genetically, it seems strange to say that they came from Indonesia.
They were probably ancestors of the Paiwan who came to Indonesia and the Philippines by boats. Ancestors of the Batak later went on to populate Polynesia and from there Micronesia. I call the group made up of Sea Dayak, Sumatrans, Balinese and the Paiwan the Island SE Asian Race.
From 700-2,300 yrs ago, the last wave of Austronesians came from Taiwan, and these are the present day Pinoys. This group, traditionally called Malays, is almost exclusively related to the Ami aborigine tribe of Taiwan. An initial group of these Ami came 1,900-2,300 years ago and formed the primitive, headhunting groups in the Luzon hill tribes. These tribes include the Igorots, Ifugaos , Bontoks and the Tinggians or Tinguians.
Another group of Ami came from 700-1,900 years ago, and includes the Visayans, Tagalogs, Ilocanos, Bicolanos and Kapampangans. This group was much more advanced than the earlier group, and actually used an alphabet. The overwhelming majority of Filipinos today are related to this last group.
900 years ago, a large wave of southern Chinese came to the Philippines on boats and totally mixed in with the Ami-Filipinos.

Beautiful little Filipina girls. This is a classic Filipino phenotype.

Present-day Filipinos are mostly related to the Ami of Taiwan who came 700- 2,300 years ago, with heavy Southern Chinese admixture from the Chinese who came 900 years ago. The ancient Southern Chinese portion has totally mixed in to the point where we cannot see it genetically anymore, but it is there and can be seen by plotting Filipinos with Southern Chinese and noting that they plot quite close together.
More recently, there has also been some mixing with Chinese, but most Filipinos do not show evidence of this recent mixing. About 20% of Filipinos do have recent Chinese ancestry though.
Tales that the Filipinos are part-Australoid or heavily mixed with Negrito, very common beliefs among racists, racialists and amateur anthropologists on the Internet, are all in error, at least based on genetics or skull measures. The notion that Filipinos are part-Australoid is based on looking at their faces and noting that their faces appear somewhat Australoid.
This older anthropological method of dividing up groups into racial types a la Carleton Coon has fallen completely out of favor in recent years.

An old photo of Tagalogs on Luzon from the early part of the 20th Century. Some Filipinos are quite dark. Even these people are probably mostly Chinese people from Taiwan.

The Filipinos are first and foremost a Southern Chinese people, genetically related to the far Southern Han Chinese from around Hong Kong and the aboriginal Taiwanese tribe, the Ami.

A cute Ami girl from the Ami tribe of Taiwanese aborigines. Modern-day Filipinos, excepting some tribals, are extremely close genetically to the Ami of Taiwan, such that one can easily posit a Filipino-Ami subgroup. The most parsimonious conclusion is that most Filipinos today are derived from a large group of Ami who traveled via boat from Taiwan to the Philippines from 700-2,300 years.
There has since been a large infusion of Chinese to the Philippines. Many Filipinos in and around Manila claim recent Chinese ancestry. The Ami and other Taiwanese tribes were headhunters even as recently as the 1930’s. During the Japanese occupation, they were a perennial headache to the occupiers.
They had a tendency to behead the local Hokko Chinese (the mainland Chinese who came to Taiwan starting in the 1600’s). In one incident related in Time Magazine from the 1930’s, 100 Taiwanese aborigine women committed suicide en masse as their village was attacked by Japanese colonists, screaming that if their men warriors were killed defending the village, they would die too.

Map of Taiwanese aborigines showing the location of the Ami on the east coast of the island. The Ami were perfectly positioned to colonize much of island SE Asia.

Recent research shows some intriguing suggestions of closer link between Ami and the rest of the extra-Taiwanese Austronesian languages than between extra-Taiwanese Austronesian and the non-Ami Taiwanese languages. Austronesian is a vast family, but all of the main branches but one are on the island of Taiwan.

All extra-Taiwanese Austronesian languages form one vast family. There are cognates between such unexpected languages as Tagalog and Hawaiian, showing that the two peoples are related. The very deep diversity in Taiwanese Austronesian indicates that the Taiwanese languages have been evolving on the island for a very long time.

In fact, I was able to construct a compact race called that I called the South China Sea Race, composed of Filipinos, the Ami of Taiwan and the Guangdong Han, a shorthand for the Southern Chinese of Guangdong Province, Hong Kong and the Taiwan Strait.

The ancient proto-Ami descendants of the Filipinos were the speakers of Austronesian ancestor language of all the Philippines, the Sama-Bajau languages and Gorontalo-Mongondow languages. They also founded the Zabag Empire and it’s successor Lusung Empire, ancient small kingdoms in the Philippines. There were ancient Yue Kingdoms in Guangdong that were originally founded by the Ami of Taiwan.
There have been complaints in the comments section at the end of the post that Filipinos and Hong Kong Chinese do not look much alike. I do not know Asians very well, and to me Southern Chinese from around Hong Kong have darker skins and more SE Asian features than any other Chinese that I have encountered.
Apparently, Hong Kong Chinese and Filipinos can be readily discerned by those in the know. However, some say that when they are in Hong Kong, they have a hard time telling the Filipinos from the Hong Kong natives. They says the only way they can tell them apart is by talking to them.
But my racial classification is not based on phenotype – it is based on genes and genes alone. Check the Capelli and Chu papers linked at the end of the piece for evidence linking first the Filipinos to the Ami, and then the Hong Kong Chinese to the Ami.
The Chinese in this area have some of the world’s highest recorded IQ’s of around ~105. Oddly, the Filipino IQ is only 86, but there is a tremendous amount of malnutrition in the Philippines, and the population is poorly educated as the semi-feudal state spends almost nothing on schooling the people.
Filipinos I have known of no more than average intelligence show typical Asian traits of behavioral inhibition, calmness, shyness, self-consciousness and even a degree of introversion in the females along typical Asian time preference and providence (willingness to work hard today in the interest of possible rewards at some unknown future time).
Improvidence is typically associated with lower IQ’s, while increased providence is associated with higher IQ’s, so it is interesting to see that the Filipinos, with a relatively low IQ of 86, have behavioral attributes of higher-IQ groups.
I have been completely stunned by the highly developed math skills of Filipinos who have only at best average intelligence. Asian intelligence is highly weighted towards math and visual intelligence. All of these things add weight to the notion of Filipinos being a Southern Chinese people.
India, with a national IQ of only 81, has developed an amazing high tech and call center economy. Call centers are moving to the Philippines, where, if anything, English skills are better than in India. I think that the Philippines shows good potential for IT, based on better than expected math skills. Lack of behavioral disinhibition and good time preference ought to be good traits in the Filipino labor force.
Like many people who evolved in the tropics, Filipinos are sunny, happy and seemingly carefree. They love to laugh, sing and party. In this way they resemble Thais, Cambodians, Laos, Malays, Polynesians, Micronesians, Melanesians, Indonesians, Caribbeans and even Africans.

Typical Filipinos of today. Note the easy smiles and carefree faces. Poster is from a government contraception campaign, badly needed in this overpopulated land.

The Philippines may have a better future in the modern economy than many think.
This blog does support the armed Maoist insurgency waged by the New People’s Army in the Philippines, but that is really the subject of another post.


Bulbeck, D., Rainer, D. Groves, C., Raghavan, P. 2003. “The Contribution of South Asia to the Peopling of Australasia” and the Relevance of Basel’s Naturhistorisch Museum to the Anthropological Collection to the Project Aims. Bull. Soc. Suisse d’Anthrop. 9(2):49-70.
Capelli, C., Wilson, J.F., Richards, M., Stumpf, M.P.H., Gratrix, F., Oppenheimer, S., Underhill, P., Pascali, V.L., Ko, T.M., and Goldstein, D.B. 2001. A Predominantly Indigenous Paternal Heritage for the Austronesian-Speaking Peoples of Insular Southeast Asia and Oceania. American Journal of Human Genetics 68:432-443.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., P. Menozzi, A. Piazza. 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chu, J. Y., Huang, W., Kuang, S. Q., Wang, J. M., Xu, J. J., Chu, Z. T., Yang, Z. Q., Lin, K. Q., Li, P., Wu, M., Geng, Z. C., Tan, C. C., Du, R. F., and Jin, L.. 1998. Genetic Relationship of Populations in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 95:11763-11768.
Gaillard, Jean-Christophe and Mallari, Joel P. 2004. The Peopling of the Philippines: A Cartographic Synthesis. Hukay: Journal of the University of the Philippines Archaeological Studies Program. 6:1-27.
Harihara, S., Saitou, N., Hirai, M., Gojobori, T., Park, K. S., Misawa, S., Ellepola, S. B., Ishida, T. and Omoto, K. 1988. Mitochondrial DNA Polymorphism Among Five Asian Populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 43:134-143.
Headland, Thomas N. 2003. Thirty Endangered Languages in the Philippines. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session 47.
Jablonski, N. and Chaplin, G. 2000. The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. Journal of Human Evolution.
Miller, Jeanne and Helen W. Miller. 1978. Mamanwa [language texts].‭ In Evan L. Antworth (ed.), Folktale Texts, 80-90. Studies in Philippine Linguistics, 2(2). Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines and Summer Institute of Linguistics.
Omoto, K. 1984. The Negritos: Genetic Origins and Microevolution. Acta Anthropogenetics 8(1-2):137-47.
Omoto, K., Ueda, S., Goriki, K., Takahashi, N., Misawa, S., and Pagaran, I. G. 1981. Population Genetic Studies of the Philippine Negritos. III. Identification of the Carbonic Anhydrase-1 Variant With CA1 Guam. American Journal of Human Genetics 33(1):105-111.
Porter, Doris. 1977. Figurative Uses of ‘Breath’ in Tboli.‭ Studies in Philippine Linguistics 1(1):148-50.
Schumacher, Ronald L. 1986. Stative Verbs at Peak in Agusan Manobo Narrative Discourse.‭ Studies in Philippine Linguistics 6(1):80-93.

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

A Brief Look at the History of Art in the West, 300 BC – 1350 AD

Updated February 24. I added a few more things here.
I’m just getting into the history of art, and most people don’t know the slightest thing about it either, so let’s take a little jaunt into art history and you’re welcome to come along on my journey.
This will focus mostly on the history of art in the West. This post isn’t complete at all, but at least it gives you an overview of the subject. What it does in brief is gives a list of the finest art produced in the West from 300 BC until about 1400 or so, with a brief jaunt into the 1800’s.
I only link to one of these works of art, but if you are interested in some of the greatest works of art ever produced by men, just copy paste the names of the works below into Google images and you should be able to get a look at what I’m talking about. I’m too lazy to track down links to all of these works, sorry.
First of all, a previous post that suggested that there was little art in the Dark Ages was completely mistaken. What is true is that there was a decline in the great art and architecture produced by the Romans. Roman art came from the Greeks, and I think the Greeks were better sculptors.
Great Greek buildings and statues include The Treasury of the Siphnians and Battle Between the Greeks and Giants (Delphi), Achilles or Spear Bearer, the Parthenon and the Temple of the Olympian Zeus (Athens), Temple of the Athena Nike (Acropolis), Aphrodite of Knidos, Hermes and the Infant Dionysus, the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (out of this world), Warrior A, The Scraper, Venus de Milo, Gallic Chieftain Killing His Wife and Himself, Athena Attacking the Giants and Dying Gallic Trumpeter (Pergamon), Laocoon and His Sons, Nike of Samothrace and Hellenistic Ruler.
Statues such as the Venus de Milo are some of the finest statues, albeit classical statues, ever made. They are very realistic; one could even say that they are hyper-realistic. It is better to say that Greek art was idealized realism. That is, it is more real than real. If you look at Greek statues of humans, they are more perfect than humans actually are.
Anatomists have studied these statues and concluded that these statues are in fact more perfect than actual humans could be, down to the last detail. It’s an idealized and perfectionist vision of man and what he could be.
Greek art, and the Roman art that followed, is very secular. This sets it apart from the art that followed in 1000 years following the Fall of Rome, in which art become focused solely on religion. So in this way, the Greeks and Romans were extremely advanced for their time. In contrast to the wildly religious-obsessed art of the Middle Ages, Greek and Roman art nearly avoids religion, as if it was not important.
What was important, instead, was the secular, quotidian lives we live on Earth and all of the hopes, dreams, tragedies, comedies, joys, etc etc. of the human journey. In this crucial way, the Greeks and Romans were as modern as we were. If we could go back in time and air-drop cars and planes into their cities, I’m pretty sure they could go to town with them pretty fast. Quit thinking of these ancients as primitives. They were just like us!
Some Greek art such as Gallic Chieftain Killing His Wife and Himself and Dying Gallic Trumpeter, while secular, is also histrionic is a staged sense. These are the exaggerated emotions of our films and plays, the timeless saga of man, his travails, conflicts and emotions.
The point here is that the emotional content is wildly exaggerated in the way that it often is on stage in plays. Plays, like opera, since they lack the fancy sets of cinema, rely on exaggeration of emotion, to convey what they lack via fancy sets and multimillion dollar crews.
The Greeks made some great tile art too, like Alexander the Great Confronts Darius III at the Battle of Isos and Stag Hunt.
In a previous post I asked why the very early civilizations all built pyramids. The truth is not so surprising. A pyramid is the most basic and rational architectural structure to build. It’s a natural. If you empty salt onto a table, it ends up in a pyramid shape. A pile of about anything often ends up pyramidal. A pyramid is going to stay upright.
Building large things other than pyramids that are going to stay upright is a lot more difficult. This is why the Roman invention of the arch was so essential. In architecture, the arch is an essential ingredient to any advanced building.
If you see some of the reconstructed Roman structures in the context of the time, it’s as if they were built by aliens. That’s how far advanced they were beyond anything else of the time. I have seen interiors of large Roman structures that look like modern airport terminals (see the Central Hall of the Basilica Ulpia in Rome). Roman cities were laid out very rationally on perfect grids. They also made atriums, pillars, coliseums, on and on. Buildings had elaborate carvings made in them, often of men in combat.
Roman paintings do exist, but due to the fact that they used wood and paints that decayed, little has remained. Most remaining Roman “paintings” were done with tiles. I have seen Roman paintings that achieve a look that was not achieved again until the 20th Century (see The Unswept Floor by Herakleitos). Pompeii has many of these.
As with just about everything else, Roman art and architecture was out of this world.
Some of the great statues, tilework, carved artwork on buildings, buildings and cities are Head of a Man, Aulus Metellus, Imperial Procession, Commodus As Hercules, Augustus of Primaporta, Gemma Augustea, the House of the Silver Wedding and the House of the Vetii (Pompeii), Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius, Battle Between the Romans and the Barbarians, Still Life (Herculaneum), the Colosseum, Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli and The Battle of Centaurs and Wild Beasts (at Hadrian’s Villa), Timgad in Algeria, the apartment blocks of Ostia, and the Arch of Titus, the Arch of Constantine and the Column of Trajan (all in Rome).
The Pantheon in Rome may be one of the greatest buildings ever made, though the competition is tight. The Dome of the Pantheon is out of this world.
It’s commonly said that Romans fell to barbarians, Germanic tribes. It’s true that they sacked the place, but it’s not true that the Dark Ages lacked art, as I noted above. What happened in the Dark Ages was a decline in the quality of art over that produced by the Romans and Greeks.
Furthermore, art became very restricted. Paintings, usually done with tiles, have a dark, depressing and Hellish theme, overridden with a harsh moralism. The world was a cruel and nasty place, and if you didn’t watch it and pray all the time, you were going to Hell.
Almost all paintings were of religious figures of one type or another. People often have a strange, otherworldly look. This is because as I noted in an earlier post on the Dark Ages, the Church had the only money at this time. If you wanted to get funded, you had to go to the Church and the Church would only fund Church-related stuff. Plus probably most art was being done in monasteries, as with most other productive activity beyond mere survival.
The people looked strange because the Church frowned on realistic looking people. That looked like real life, and the Church did not want to portray real life. They only wanted to portray the otherworldly realms of religion. In this attitude we can see the common religious attitude that the worldly life is permanently tainted with sin and must be avoided as much as possible.
Although this was a dark time for art and society, the focus on religion was reasonable. Truth was, life was so dark and dismal that the Church was where it was all going on. All art was about the Church because there was nothing else happening and life was really bad. All science, education, learning, reading, writing, wealth creation, art, architecture – it was all coming out of the Church. The money factor was crucial. Nowadays, if you want money, you go into business. Back then, you got into religion.
The reason that things fell apart so much in the Dark Ages was the collapse of urbanization. Country folks and back to the landers may not like city life too much, but when cities collapse, most everything tends to go to Hell. By contrast, the greatness of Greece and Rome was actually related to their high level of urbanization. City life seems necessary for advanced civilization to occur. With urbanization, some crucial factors probably jell together that start to mandate civilizational advances.
Characteristic of the time is large halos around everyone in the painting. It is accurate to say that art did not progress during the Dark Ages, that it actually went backwards.
Nevertheless, much fine material was produced.
Some of the excellent paintings, sculptures and buildings produced during the Dark Ages include the Church of Santa Sabina (Rome), the Church of Santa Costanza, the Mausoleum of the Galla Placidia, the Dome of the Baptistry of the Orthodox and the Church of San Vitale, the Transfiguration of Christ with Saint Apollinaris, First Bishop of Ravenna – a painting in the Church of Saint Apollinaire of Classe (all in Ravenna, Italy), the Hagia Sofia (Istanbul) – one of the finest buildings ever built, the first written Bibles such as the Rabbula Gospels from Syria, the Paris Psalter, the Ebbo Gospels and the great Crucifixion with Angels and Mourning Figures cover of the Lindau Gospels (all from France) and the Book of Kells from Scotland (Out of this world!), the Cathedral of Saint Mark (Venice), the Palace Chapel of Charlemagne (Aachen, Germany), ornaments from the Sutton Hoo burial ship (Suffolk, England), the Gummersmark brooch (Denmark), the Labro Saint Hammers (Gotland, Sweden) the burial ship from Oseberg (Oseberg, Norway), the Gero Crucifix from the Cologne Cathedral (Cologne, Germany) and the Church of Saint Cyriakus (Gernrode, Germany).
Note that fine art was even produced up in Scandinavia. These people were not primitive by any means. The problem up there is that most art was created out of wood. There was plenty of that, but it doesn’t make very good art, and most important, it doesn’t last. For really great art, it helps to have some big rocks, and I think there are a lot more trees than rocks in Scandinavia.
Greece looks like while God was creating the world, he took a break to throw rocks at Greece. The place is littered with stones. Hence all of the fine stone sculptures, buildings and cities of Greece.
Great art continues in the High Middle Ages, such as the Church of the Monastery of Christ in Chora (Constantinople) and the painting Anastasis on its apse, the Doors of Bishop Benward at the Abbey of the Church of Saint Michael (Hildesheim, Germany), Doubting Thomas in the Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos (Castile, Spain), Christ in Majesty in the Church of San Clemente (Tahuil, Catalonia, Spain), the Borgund Stave Church (Sogn, Norway), the Durham Cathedral (Scotland), the Church of Saint Etienne (Caen, France), the Speyer Cathedral (Speyer, Germany), the Church of Saint Ambrogio (Milan, Italy), the Cathedral Complex (Pisa, Tuscany, Italy), the Church of San Clemente (Rome), printed works such as the Worcester Chronicle (Worcester, England) and the Winchester Psalter (Winchester, England), the woven Bayeux Tapestry (Bayeux, Normandy,  France) and the Portable altar of Saints Kilian and Liborius from the Helmarshausen abbey (Helmarshausen, Saxony, Germany).
The Leaning Tower of Pisa is also in the Pisa Complex. The tower is leaning not because it was top heavy, though it is, but because it was built on sand. It would have fallen over long ago without our efforts to shore it up. These efforts are vast and ongoing. We are tunneling under the building and shoring it up in various ways to keep it from falling. Right now things are so bad that it is so dangerous to be around the tower that visitors are forbidden from walking within toppling distance of the thing.
One reason that the art above is so great, even those famous Bibles, is that monks would spend 20 years, 40 years, or a lifetime making say one Bible, one treasure box, painting one church. Not only that, but a whole team might work for many years on an object or interior church design. These monasteries were like miniature factories. They weren’t producing a lot, but no one else was either. They were very inefficient, but there was no competition.
Gothic is in the High Middle Ages, and this is starting to head into the Renaissance, although everything is still about religion.
Gothic had some superb works, and now we are looking at some of the finest churches of all, including the Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Chartres, France), another of the greatest buildings ever built, the Amiens Cathedral (Amiens, France), an incredible building, another Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Paris), a competitor with the Notre-Dame in Chartres and possibly better, another Cathedral of Notre-Dame (Reims, France), possibly the best one of them all, the Saint-Chapelle (Paris), yet another awesome building, and the Salisbury Cathedral (Wiltshire, England) – too much!
Gothic architecture clearly produced some of the finest buildings that have ever been built. It’s characterized by tall, thin cathedrals with vast spires jabbing away at the sky.
The purpose of those spires was to point towards heaven. The idea of the tall buildings was to make them closer to Heaven, and also the various monasteries and bishops were in competition with each other to see who could build higher buildings. The tall, thin shape that gets more pointed towards the top is the best way to build a tall building for the same reason that a pyramid is a natural form.
A building that gets more pointed near the top is less likely to topple over than a top-heavy building that has as much weight at the top as at the bottom. One of those Gothic cathedrals actually had a building that did not get more pointed as it rose and that part of the building toppled over.
How did they build those cathedrals? They used scaffolds. Often families of men, fathers, sons, grandfathers, multiple generations, would work on the buildings.  They usually worked for free or room and board. The Church told them, “Hey, if you guys work on this church your whole life, you will go straight to Heaven.” Yeah right.
One purpose of the cathedrals was conversion. Life was pretty dismal in those days, and the life of a serf was bad. So you took a humble person and should him this wild cathedral, so beyond anything else he had ever seen that it may as well have been built by aliens, and you pretty much had a convert on your hands, so awe-struck was he.
These cathedrals show us just how much money the Church had at this time. For all intents and purposes, the Church had all the money and no one else had a dime. It’s a truism that while the Roman Empire did formally fall, really it just morphed into the Roman Catholic Church.
The fundamentalist crowd wonders why we care so much about separation of church and state. We care because back in those days, the Church was the state. English kings pondered for lifetimes ways to get the Church out of the business of running the damn country. No wonder Henry VIII threw the Church out and set up the Anglican Church. It was the only way to get free of this octopus and its tentacles.
In the Late Middle Ages, great works continue, including the Exeter Cathedral (Exeter, Devon, England), a mind-boggling structure, the Ely Cathedral (Ely, Cambridgeshire, England), the dome of which makes you wonder how they even built it, the Cathedral of Palma (Mallorca, Spain), up there with the greatest and the Church of the Holy Cross (Schwabisch Gmund, Germany), the Virgin and Saint George, the altarpiece of the Church of San Francisco, Villafranco del Panades (Barcelona), the Shrine of the Three Kings (Germany), the Florence Cathedral (Florence), an incredible building, the Siena Cathedral (Siena, Italy), another awesome structure, the Life of John the Baptist on the doors of the Baptistry of San Giovanni (Florence), Giotto di Bondone’s Last Judgment on the west wall and Life of Christ and the Virgin on the north and south walls of the Arena Chapel and Duccio di Buoninsegna’s Maesta Altarpiece for the Siena Cathedral.
Around 1340, one of the first works including landscapes and regular people with no religious significance was done, Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Allegory of Good Government in the City and Allegory of Good Government in the Country, two frescoes in the Sala della Pace in the Pallazo Pubbico in Siena. The moving away from religion and focus on our real world shows how the Late Middle Ages were leading into the Renaissance.
The periods of the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance seem to blend together. The Renaissance ran from around 1350-1600. The Late Middle Ages are thought to be from 1300-1450, so there is definitely overlap. The truth is that the Late Middle Ages shade into and lead into the Renaissance. In the Renaissance, we get the first non-religious art since the fall of Rome.
I don’t have much to say about the art of China and Japan except that it is good. It’s difficult to compare this art with the art produced in Europe. They all had their own styles  and it’s hard to say if any one of them is better than the other, but I don’t think that Japanese art is any better than what was being done in Europe at the time.
Islamic art is actually very good, especially the tilework on the interior of mosques up on the domes. This is excellent art, and as good as what was being done in Europe. The only thing you can say about Islamic art is that their ridiculous religion bans them from drawing humans.
I have seen some early Jewish art, but I wasn’t much impressed by it. Jews are very smart and many modern artists are Jews, so Jews can clearly make great art. The problem here is that like in Islam, Jews were forbidden to make graven images, and the forbidding of idol worship means you can’t draw people, and that tends to really limit your artwork. The fact that Islam has the same prohibition means to me that Islam has borrowed from Judaism.
The art of Central America is interesting, and some of it is not bad. I don’t think it’s superior to European art, but I’m not sure if it’s inferior either. Some of the gold ornamentation is really great.
I really hate to bag on Blacks here, but I should say something about African art. I was not very impressed with it. The best building was the Great Friday Mosque in Djenne, Mali, built in the 1200’s. It’s made of mud and wood. It’s ok, but compared to what was being built in Europe and the Arab World at the time, it’s not much at all. Afrocentrists like to go on about the Great Zimbabwe built around 1300. Yes, it’s a long wall made of stones with some conical structures here and there. If this is Africa’s greatest architecture, I don’t know what to say. It’s not much.
However, I was very impressed by statue heads and masks out of Benin from 1400-1650 and continuing on to 1900. Some of that is excellent. It is usually made of brass. However, I am told that they were already coming under the influence of Europeans, especially Portuguese, and this spurred this nice art. I don’t care what influenced them. There is some cool art coming out of Benin around the time of European Renaissance.
I’m not so impressed with the earlier stuff out of Yoruba or the very early stuff out of Nok in Nigeria. However, we must acknowledge that Nok was one the flashpoints for early African civilization and more was accomplished here sooner than anywhere else in Africa.
At any rate, today Africans produce some superb art, especially African masks. Travelers to Africa with some cash often pick them up and it’s a great investment. I’d love to have one on my wall.
In the 1800’s, all art and music was in the classical traditions. If you wanted to be an artist of a musician, you had to go to school and study the classics. That was really the only way to paint or make music. Hence, art and music had stagnated. The classical art and music had been taken to the limits and the best had already been done. Michelangelo and Beethoven were not going to be surpassed. There was nothing to innovate anymore.
One of the first impressionist was Édouard Manet. His first impressionist painting, Le déjeuner sur l’herbe (The Luncheon on the Grass) (1863) was a strange painting of a two clothed men eating a meal with a naked woman in a park. It caused a scandal because the people pictured were real people, not religious, historical, mythological, political or monarchic figures (the five permitted types).
It was not really possible to paint a real person. All art had to be of one of the five types of persons above. The idea of painting a real person was ridiculous.
Manet’s painting caused a scandal not because the woman was nude. It was ok to paint nudes if they were of the five types of persons allowed. The idea that someone would paint a nude of a real life person was outrageous.
It was made even worse because people knew the names of those who were painted – the men were his brother, Eugene Manet, and his girlfriend’s brother and future brother in law, Ferdinand Leenhoff and the woman was Victorine Meurent, Manet’s favorite model and later an artist in her own right.
Further, the subject matter was seen as shocking, nearly pornographic. What were the clothed men doing eating with the naked woman? It was as if they were both going to have sex with her at the same time in a menage a trois .
What Manet did with that painting was like saying, “Screw you,” to the Art Establishment of the time. It was like punk rock, an act of artistic defiance. It was anti-art, anti-classical art, and anti-Art Establishment.
Manet many and his supporters got banned from a major art exhibition in 1863, the Salon de Paris. The jury of the Académie des Beaux-Arts, which dominated the French art scene at the time, voted to exclude his painting from the Salon, and those of many other Impressionists were also banned.
This research takes a lot of time, and I do not get paid anything for it. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a a contribution to support more of this valuable research.

The Five Hearths of Urbanization

I never really knew much about this, but a friend of mine was taking a course in Human Geography (WTH?) and this was one of the things that they dealt with in the class.
What this really means is that these five areas were the first parts of the world to experience urbanization. Urbanization is very important. You cannot even make cities until you develop surplus agriculture. Moving agriculture from subsistence to surplus usually involves a move to some sort of large farms, orchards or plantations. These large agricultural outposts can then produce enough to not only feed the rural population, but to provide food for the urban population.
The urban population must be fed by the rural because as a good rule, people in cities just do not grow food, or, if they do, they do not grow enough to sustain the city. As long as the urban folks don’t need to worry about starving and don’t have to grow food, they can do other stuff besides growing food. This is the beginnings of civilization.
The five Hearths are the Nile River Valley in Egypt, Mesopotamia in Iraq, the Indus River Valley in Pakistan, the Mayan in Central America and the Yellow River Valley in China. No one has any idea of what the IQ’s of the dwellers of these regions were at the time, but right now they are Guatemala 79, Egypt 82, Pakistan 82.5, Iraq 87 and China 105 (I don’t accept Richard Lynn’s phony 100 figure for China).
All but China are in what is the lower half of the human IQ range. Since White nationalists are adamant that IQ has remained unchanged in all of these places, and everywhere else for that matter, in the past few thousand years, it behooves to ask how is it that these dummies showed up Homo Superiorus in Europe anyway?
Of the five, Egypt was far and away the most advanced. The latest thinking is that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but instead were built by relatively well-paid, middle-class workers. Whole cities that housed these workers have been uncovered near the pyramids. Egyptian cities are the oldest of all. I am not sure of dates, but it looks like Egyptian cities go back 6,000 years or more (YBP = years before present).
It’s odd that the earliest cities were the best of them all. The majestic pyramids were unsurpassed in the other Hearths. Although Mesopotamia had stone obelisks as tall as a man, Egypt had incredible obelisks of solid stone up to an unbelievable 100 feet tall. People to this day still wonder how the Egyptians did it, and no one quite knows.
King Tut appointed what seems to be the first, or one of the first, queens of a large society, so this was a feminist breakthrough too, not that you would know it if you went to Islamic and misogynistic Egypt today.
The next one along was Mesopotamia at 5,500 years ago. This is very, very early. They had art, aqueducts and organized religion, but no pyramids or major architectural accomplishments. There was a Great Wall of Babylon, a beautiful structure fashioned of blue bricks.
They had obelisks and statues such as the Style of Hammurabi, but that was only as tall as a man. Compare to the 100 foot obelisks of the Egyptians – no contest. The Mesopotamians were already smelting metal – this was the Bronze Age. Smelting metal is a serious advance in civilization, and it’s amazing that anyone was smelting anything 4,900 years ago, when Mesopotamian smelting began. It appears that Mesopotamia was influenced by the earlier civilization of the Egyptians.
The next is the great civilization of the Indus. This was in Pakistan, not in India as idiot Indian nationalists claim. Not quite as impressive as the first two, it did have very large cities with aqueducts for irrigation. However, they had no pyramids or other great architecture, no art and no writing. They had big cities and little else. The Indus Civilization vanished without a trace for unknown reasons. The Indus was very old, 4,200 YBP.
The fourth Hearth was the Maya Civilization in Central America. This actually goes back a long ways, all the way to 3,100 YBP at least and possibly earlier. It was characterized by a writing system, mathematics, pyramids, art and advanced astronomy. The Mayan pyramids were excellent structures. I am not sure how they compare to the Egyptian pyramids, but it is fascinating that early peoples in two completely different parts of the world both decided to build pyramids (Why?).
The Mayans also smelted metal and had a very early irrigation system.
What is odd is that neither the Mayans nor the Aztecs who came much later never managed to invent the wheel or to put it to good use. The wheel is absolutely essential for advanced civilization, and discovering it is considered a profound breakthrough for any culture.
What is even more strange is that the early Central Americans did invent the wheel, but they did not put it to good use. We have found children’s toys with wheels on them from these cultures. On the other hand, there were no pack animals to be domesticated in Central America, so it’s dubious what use you could put the wheel to, although I guess you could make a rickshaw, a bicycle or a wheelbarrow.
The early Central Americans are derided, especially by White Nationalists, for being horribly, even evilly cruel, especially in their mad, seemingly insane addiction to human sacrifice. It’s true that the Central Americans did take human sacrifice to frightfully vicious extremes, at times making it nearly an assembly line operation.
However, many early cultures engaged in human sacrifice, including Homo Superiorus over in Europe. Why, we ask? Well, these were pre-scientific folks. They did have their Gods, but as cruel and meaningless as fate often is, the Gods must have been crazy, to paraphrase a movie title.
For instance, these nutty and semi-wicked Gods would kill the hottest babe in the village along with the handsomest, smartest guy to boot, for no darn reason at all, while leaving alive the village dirtbag, who barely even deserved to be kept alive one more minute. None of it made sense. Human life is a caprice, so cruel a caprice that it can almost seem like folly or the blackest of jokes.
These Gods were clearly nuts, but they ruled our lives nevertheless. What to do? Appease the crazy bastards.
This was the meaning of human sacrifice and the more humane later animal sacrifice, taken to insane lengths of folly by the Jews of the Temple Period, where an assembly line of animals stretched for up to a mile or so, and animals were killed all day in a 9-5 operation, such that blood flowed from the Temple like a river. This is the mad period that the most fanatical Zionists wish to recreate.
Anyway, the way to appease a powerful, crazy person is to humor him, be nice to him or even bring him gifts. This was the idea behind the human sacrifices, to try to semi-rationalize the ferocious whimsy of the Gods.
The fifth Hearth is the Yellow River Valley of China. Actually, yo can’t say that anymore, as the PC-idiots take offense. Guess why? Yellow River sounds like yellow skin. Chinese are said to have yellow skins, but that’s racist and you can’t say that. So forget the Yellow River.
Instead, it’s the Huang He River, which I think means yellow in Chinese, but since mostly only Chinese know Chinese, there’s nothing to get offended about, since Chinese equating Chinese = yellow is not offensive, but if Caucasians do it, it’s mean and evil and racist. Whatever.
Anyway, the Yellow River civilization was about 2,200 YBP. I don’t know much about it except that they did have large cities and irrigation. They also had writing.
One might reasonably ask what these five Hearths had in common. We can say that they were near the Equator, but not too near. That seems crucial. They were all in the Northern Hemisphere, but I doubt if that is meaningful, except that there  seem to be more humans and more land mass in the north. And, with the exception of the Mayas, they were all in lush river valleys. The Mayas are odd man out in the jungle.
The question of YBP comes up. I don’t mind the term. Originally we had B.C. (Before Christ), and as a Christian, that’s just fine for me. Well, some folks got rid of that a while back and replaced it with BCE, (Before Christian Era), which always struck me as a cheap anti-Christian shot.
I figure Jews probably had a hand in this, since Jesus isn’t exactly their favorite guy, nor is Christianity exactly their favorite religion. The atheists and scientist types must have had a hand in it too. It surely so infuriated these poor atheist souls to have to say and write that horrible word “Christ” over and over. Non-Christians all over the world probably nodded in approval or chimed in.
YBP seems a good compromise. Neither Christocentric nor a slap in the face of Christianity, it just avoids the whole issue of Jesus and religion altogether and goes by a nice secular calendar.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Nice Timeline of the Late Roman Empire

This is a really cool timeline that I happened upon that gives a brief history of the Late Roman Empire, with specific focus on Britain. I didn’t find it on the Internet, so there is no link. I really don’t understand a lot of what is in this timeline, as I’m just learning about the Dark Ages now, but you may wish to look it over with me.
My previous post on Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism needs some explication. The truth is that before the split between the Roman and Eastern Church, there was only one Catholic Church.
There was no Roman Catholic Church. There was no Orthodox (Catholic) Church. There was one and only one church, the Catholic Church. “Catholic” itself just meant something like for everyone, for everyman. The actual Roman Catholic Church and the actual Orthodox (Catholic) Church only begin formally with the split in 1054.
Sometimes the head of the Church was in Constantinople and at other times it was in Rome, and sometimes it seems to have been in both places at once.
Ancient British history is much more complicated than modern British history. We can summarize modern British history quite easily. We can generalize about what Britain did in World War 2, and what it has done in the past decade. We can’t do this was Dark Ages Britain, because there was no unified Britain.
There were kingdoms, mini-kingdoms and super-kingdoms scattered all over Britain and at any given time, there were, say 10-20 different important things going on in each small bit of territory.
A friend of mine is currently taking a course in British History and he says that this period is maddeningly complex. A study of early British history is practically the tutelage of a lifetime.
Rome, in a way, continues on even after the Fall. There are post-Roman or pseudo-Roman kings after the Fall in Britain. They had Roman names, Roman values and probably even spoke Latin.
The Dark Ages were a time of a great loss of knowledge. Only the monks could read and write; even the Kings typically could not read or write! The monasteries were where it was all happening, Daddy-O. All of the art, science, education, technology, the works.
You had lots of single men here who did not have wives and kids to keep up. Your ordinary working man slaved away all day and had no time left over for study, science, technology, learning, reading, writing, anything.
This sort of tradition continued up into the modern era when the rich, the leisure class, replaced the monks. Up until recent times, nearly all science, technology, scholarly work, literature, poetry, etc. was produced by wealthy men. The working class guy simply did not have enough time to do much other than work all day and support his wife and kids.
By the same token, women were excluded from most of these roles. It was wife and mother, or get thee to a nunnery. In one area, literature, women did start to produce in late modern era. It is interesting that many of the first and best female novelists from  the era were lesbians (Yes, it is true.)
There are a couple of reasons for this. First of all, only an unmarried woman had the time to write novels. A wife and mother was too busy slaving all day to have time to write any book, much less a great novel. Furthermore, writing, even literature, was regarded as men’s work – only men were writers. This conceit survives today in the expression “man of letters.”
Writing was just not ladylike! It was downright dykey. Women were just not seen as writers. Their talents were ridiculed. If someone told you that a woman wrote a book, you might start laughing. “What about?” you might ask. “Cooking?” It was assumed that this was practically the only subject a woman could write sensibly about.
In the early days, monks did not have to be celibate, and incredibly, nuns and monks lived together in a single monastery. Some of the monks and nuns were not celibate, but most were. Those who were celibate were not so by directive but by choice. These were deeply religious people who really wanted to give up sex and leave the opposite sex alone, so enforcement of a celibacy rule was not much of a problem.
Also, there were very strict rules that they had to live under, even if celibacy was not one of them. Later, there were separate wings, one for women and another for men. At some later time, celibacy was enforced.
The horror of deflation, a terrifying spiral that is difficult to stop, is exemplified by Dark Ages economics. There simply was not much money, period, for anyone. Where there is little money anywhere, there is little money to be accumulated by would-be wealthy elites. Hence, even kingdoms, Duchys, etc. were quite weak.
The economy centered around the monasteries. This was where capital was being accumulated. You had lots of good workers who were for all intents and purposes slaves.
The monasteries produced all sorts of items and were almost the only source of industry during the Dark Ages. Where did the surplus profits produced by the monasteries go? Good question. Usually back to the Church – to the abbots, bishops and even back to Rome or Constantinople.
In those days, abbots did not have to be celibate either. An abbot was often a family man; he would just be some ordinary guy living in the area. The Church people would come up to him and say, “Hey, you’re the abbot.” It was a great job, so must assented.
There was little art produced in the Dark Ages. It was one more thing that fell by the wayside. It is little-known, but the Romans produced quite a bit of art. The painted all of their buildings in all sorts of gaudy colors. The problem was that they used inferior paints that decayed and did not last, so very little has survived. People were even making paintings in the Dark Ages, but they were using this lousy paint and, to make matters worse, they were painting on wood. Wood doesn’t last, so little of this art remains.
Much of the remaining art from the Dark Ages comes from the Byzantines. The Byzantines used tiles to make religious tile paintings. Tile, a ceramic, tends to last. Byzantine art looks strange to our eyes, almost always religious pictures of Jesus, Mary, etc., often with prominent halos. Canvas is obviously a much better choice for painting, and canvas is still used today. Canvas did not start to be used a lot until after the Dark Ages and heading up into the Late Middle Ages – probably around 1300 or so.
Timeline follows:
324 – Foundation of Constantinople (Byzantium) by Constantine.
368 – Count Theodosius routs barbarians in Britain and puts down rebellion of Valentinus.
382 – Magnus Maximus defeats Picts and Scots.
395 – Division of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius.
398 – Britain suffers from attacks by Saxons, Picts and Scots.
406-7 – Legions in Britain elect a series of usurpers – Marcus, Gratian, and finally Constantine III, who crosses to Gaul with Roman troops.
408 – Britain is devastated by Saxon incursions.
410 – Sack of Rome by the Visigoths; Rome formally renounces Britain.
429 – St Germanus visits Britain to combat Pelagian heresy.
439 – Vandals conquer Carthage and the African part of the Empire.
451 – Defeat of the Huns at Chalons.
455-485 – Ambrosius Aurelianus leads a series of victories over the Saxon invaders.
476 – End of the Roman Empire in the West (Fall of the Roman Empire.
490-526 – Theoderic the Ostrogoth rules Italy.
486-511 – Reign of Clovis, King of the Merovingian Franks.
506 – Franks convert to Catholic Christianity.
507 – Franks defeat Visigoths and annex Aquitaine.
527-565 – Justinian attempts reconquest of Italy and Roman Africa.
542-3 – Plague ravages the Empire, eventually reaching Britain in 549.
545 – St. David establishes St. David’s in Wales.
549 – Gildas writes De Excidio Britanniae.
563-65 – St. Columba establishes monastery of Iona and begins mission among the Picts.
573-594 – Gregory of Tours is bishop of Tours.
577 – Battle of Dyrham – British towns of Gloucester, Cirencester and Bath fall to the Saxons.
587 – Recared, King of the Visigoths, converts to Catholicism.
597 – Mission of Augustine to Britain. Establishes bishopric at Canterbury in the Kingdom of Kent.
600 – Invasion of Italy by the Lombards.
628 – Conversion of King Eadwine of Northumbria.
633 – Armies of Islam begin to attack Syrian province of Eastern Empire.


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)