What are your thoughts about this?
For myself I think that the subject statement is rather obvious isn’t it, since Africans, & especially Australian Aboriginals, have the most archaic features & share the most traits with prehistoric humans & other primates within modern humanity? Africans have neotenized greatly, culminating with the khoisan people, whereas australoids don’t have any neotenous traits which the other races have been developing & don’t lack archaic traits which the other races have devolved.
Which of the great races, the highest general division of humanity, mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid, australoid, etc. would prehistoric humans have been considered both by layman’s perceptions, & classified as more scientifically, by contemporary standards, if the choice had to be made, or at least considered closest to or most resembling?
What we’re probably thinking of then are remains going really far back enough to not be of obvious contemporary racial categories aren’t we?
Since prehistoric humans are said to not resemble any modern race, this question may end up being more about opinions rather than hard answers, might it?
Please explain & fill in details regarding your opinion & knowledge. But please do answer the main question first before adding in more details, even if to explain how this subject statement has no merit!
Not sure how much merit this book holds, but do have a look at the tables in ‘Section II: Traits of Living Populations’ for a nice summary: https://analyseeconomique.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/richard-d-fuerle-erectus-walks-amongst-us.pdf
Here’s the tables themselves. The site’s in French but you can translate it in google. You can also click on the images & save them: https://analyseeconomique.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/erectus-walks-amongst-us-richard-d-fuerle-section-2/amp/