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/


closed as primarily opinion-based by com.prehensible, Remi.b, David, kmm, Bryan Krause Jan 29 at 16:20

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ Which prehistoric humans? The ones giving rise to modern day Native Australian, Congolese, Han Chinese, ... ? $\endgroup$ – Remi.b Jan 29 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ Your right, I should have been more specific, since the term prehistoric really means anytime before history. In human evolution terms, that would mean the whole time ranging from when our ancestors split from chimps’ some 6 to 10 million years ago to the eve of civilization some 6,000 years ago, & the current races already seem to have long evolved by then. Let’s take it gradually then, step by step. $\endgroup$ – Bluelangur Jan 29 at 9:00
  • $\begingroup$ I was really being generic & referring to all prehistoric remains not identifiable with modern human races. Let’s discuss gradually, starting from our earliest ancestors, then move on to the earliest identifiable human beings, being Homo Habilis & Erectus, then to our most recent genus cousins like Neanderthals & Florensis, then to the earliest identifiable anatomically modern human remains, currently being Jebel Irhoud, & the earliest outside Africa currently being the Skhul & Qafzeh hominins, then moving to other remains around the world. $\endgroup$ – Bluelangur Jan 29 at 9:17

The first question to answer might be: Has phenotypic diversity in humans increased or decreased since prehistory? It might be the case that prehistoric humans were as diverse as modern humans, or more so, since there have been a number of diversity-reducing bottlenecks in our evolution.

  • $\begingroup$ australianmuseum.net.au/learn/science/human-evolution/… This article might answer your question partly. Nice concise article overall. I thought it was interesting to read them explain in the 6th section that modern humans’ diversity is enormous compared to early Homo Sapiens, who they seem to suggest were all much more similar to each other in physical characteristics? $\endgroup$ – Bluelangur Jan 29 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ Still, I’m pretty sure that there would have been fair amounts of variation for most of our’s as well as our genus cousins’ histories, just as there is variation among just about all isolated organisms. Even far traveling bird populations have their physical & genetic isolations & variations within genera & species, so how could one expect terrestrial beings like us to be able to avoid that? You have a good point on how our species has had some bottlenecks. The only studies & information there seems to be available for that is genetics, & not so much about phenotypes. $\endgroup$ – Bluelangur Jan 29 at 14:06

We don't really know yet what archetypes were like in the paleolithic.

this is your reference: "L’incapacité des noirs à différer la gratification les conduit à louer au lieu d’épargner, à voler au lieu de travailler et d’attendre, et à violer au lieu de courtiser et de séduire. " blacks worship/rent not save, steal not work, rape not seduce? is that your best research? there are many africans with an IQ of 140 and europeans with an IQ of 60, sometimes entier villages of europeans. So he generalizes foolishly.

There probably never was an archetype from any age, there were instead dozens of geographically isolated populations at all times, and the variety of tribes and ethnicities in history is beyond what can be visualized, understood and imagined.

40,000 years ago, there were already chinese looking people, caucasian looking people, african looking people, you would be comparing thousands of different groups at any single time in the paleolithic, and we don't have that information.

The mesolithic, neolithic, bronze and iron ages, are all prehistoric times.

Your timeline is 300,000 years, and your reference compares negro's anthropometrics to orang-utans and gorillas and caucasians. It's a silly old racially biased pseudoscience document. Real science using DNA classes Africans into a dozen ethnicities as different amongst one another as europeans, chinese and australians.

This is a list of human fossils with images: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils#Middle_Paleolithic:300,000%E2%80%93_50,000_years_old

Australians are geographically isolated people so they don't represent an archetype. They are an ethnic group amongst thousands that would have existed prior to boats and horses (3500 years ago), rather than an archetype.

There were probably many dozens of groups of peoples as exotic looking as Australians which have become mixed into todays spectrum of facial types. Nearly all the faces that existed 50,000 and 100,000 years ago have contemporary examples. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-14929644/beast-from-the-east-nikolai-valuev-seeks-siberian-yeti

  • $\begingroup$ Yes I am aware that the provided article seems to have racist agendas. I haven’t actually read the book & don’t know much about it yet. The agendas are not what I’m interested in however. All I’m interested in the book is the summary tables on the physical characteristics of the races. It’s nice & concise & seems to be accurate for the most part even if only brief & summarized. The tables were probably composed by the author himself, can’t seem to find such summary tables on the races elsewhere, especially considering how this kind of subject is considered politically incorrect in this era $\endgroup$ – Bluelangur Jan 29 at 14:07
  • $\begingroup$ diffen.com/difference/Ethnicity_vs_Race As quoted from these articles, race should not be equated with ethnicity, which has a sociological meaning. Ethnicity is a self-described category that has three components-ancestry, language, and culture that all have affinities to certain ancestral groups. Race refers to a person's physical characteristics such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. Ethnicity, however, refers to cultural factors, including nationality, regional culture, ancestry, and language. biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Biology-of-Race.html#ixzz5e0Udb5cb $\endgroup$ – Bluelangur Jan 29 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ By ‘archetype’ I imagine you mean race by that term? I would agree that is a good way to describe the concept of the major races of humanity. I just hope you understand where the concept of race comes from, that all of human variation can be summed up into 3 or 4 broad but distinct categories phenotypically, & that it’s shown now that these categories don’t overlap with genetics. 40,000 years ago seems to be as far back to when we can trace current races, caucasoid & australoid to be specific, negroid & mongoloid is far newer, so what I’m interested in are the mysterious remains before that. $\endgroup$ – Bluelangur Jan 29 at 14:40

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.