The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Eurogenes:

Ancient Egyptian Mummy Genomes Suggest an Increase of Sub-Saharan African Ancestry in Post-Roman Periods

Krause et al.

Egypt, located on the isthmus of Africa, is an ideal region to study historical population dynamics due to its geographic location and documented interactions with ancient civilizations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. Particularly, in the first millennium BCE Egypt endured foreign domination leading to growing numbers of foreigners living within its borders possibly contributing genetically to the local population. Here we mtDNA and nuclear DNA from mummified humans recovered from Middle Egypt that span around 1,300 years of ancient Egyptian history from the Third Intermediate to the Roman Period. Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more Near Eastern ancestry than present-day Egyptians, who received additional Sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level.

So, they are looking at DNA from mummies from a period beginning after the Late Bronze Age Collapse of around 1200 BC.

When was the camel domesticated?

One of the surprising discoveries of the late 20th Century was that the really big divide in the human race is between sub-Saharan Africans and everybody else. Back in the bad old days before political correctness, anthropologist Carleton Coon believed that Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans were more closely grouped by ancestry than were Europeans and East Asians. The mountains of Central Asia, in Coon’s theory, were the real impediment to gene flow.

But then along came the popular Out of Africa theory and it’s highly unpopular corollary: that the Sahara was the central divide in humanity.

But that raises the question of why the Sahara was such a barrier. One reason is that camels weren’t domesticated until about 3000 years ago and probably took awhile to spread out of Arabia into Africa. So the slave trade wasn’t very feasible before camels for crossing the desert.

But what about the Nile, which runs from Equatorial Africa to the Mediterranean? Shouldn’t that have led to more gene flow?

My vague impression is that the White Nile’s swamps in southern Sudan are extremely difficult. I can remember looking at a world train schedule handbook in 1980 and, south of Khartoum, it took forever to get up the Nile on a steamer due to aquatic vegetation.

But I may be all wrong about this.

 
Hide 102 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Ivy says:

    Cataracts on the Nile were also obstacles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/ancient-egyptian-mummy-genomes-suggest-an-increase-of-sub-saharan-african-ancestry-in-post-roman-periods/#comment-1798919
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Flip says:

    I was in Cairo once and I definitely thought the Egyptians were a mixed Caucasoid/Negroid people. The Lebanese and Arabs were much lighter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    This music video presents the regional variety. It really is huge. And the music is catchy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBvVTNRp4Q
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Phil says:

    Off topic

    Do you have any thoughts regarding the Ball clan at UCLA?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Lot says:

    The Nile did lead to more gene flow, which is why Egyptians look more SSA than Algerians.

    I think it was less a matter of it being impossible to cross the Sahara and more there was little point in it. The logistics made conquest and migration too expensive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Yak-15 says:

    So they wuz kangz and queenz but took the whole society down?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. The integration of Egypt into the broader slave trading system of the Islamic world is the most likely explanation.

    In the classical world, Egypt saw moderate movements of people from other Mediterranean regions (Jews, Greek mercenaries and merchants, Roman soldiers, etc settled there in notable numbers). But there was not a need to draw slaves from Subsaharan Africa – Egypt had enough local farmers and any urban slaves came from other regions of the broader Greco-Roman world.

    The Muslim conquest changed these patterns – by connecting Egypt to Muslim trading networks extending into Africa, and more importantly the Islamic requirement that only non-Muslims could be enslaved. The pagan subsaharan Africans so became a major source of slaves.

    The flow of military slaves to support the Mameluk dynasties from the Ukraine and Circassia also brought new populations into Egypt in the Islamic era, especially after 1200 or so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    The flow of military slaves to support the Mameluk dynasties from the Ukraine and Circassia

    There were two types of Mamlukes: nomadic Turkic-speakers from the steppes and Caucasus natives. A part of the steppes is in the Ukraine now and a lot of the future Mamlukes were transported through the Crimea, but it's a bit misleading to say that these people were from the Ukraine. They were Central Asian -stan types.

    Also, the size of the Mamluke armies was tiny. Thousands, sometimes low tens of thousands. Egypt's population was 3 to 4 million then.

    , @Eric Rasmusen
    Another channel for slaves was via the Red Sea and Arabia and Zanzibar--- but I suppose that channel only opened in A.D. sometime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Glossy says: • Website

    The ancient Egyptians had all sort of dealings with Nubia (Sudan) throughout the pharaonic period. They sometimes went further than that, into Punt, which I think was the Djibuti/Somalia region. Egyptians ruled Nubia for long periods of time. There were shorter periods when Nubians ruled Egypt.

    However, Egypt was much more fertile than any part of Black Africa. The Nile valley’s population density must have been higher by several orders of magnitude. This is why Egypt was never overwhelmed by blacks demographically.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    The pathogens and megafauna were likely much less a problem so far north, too (as Steve has observed).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. donut says:

    I am sure I put this up before but I will again just because :

    I hope Red Bone got paid . Chris is an eccentric ingenious . Most of us are just eccentric . If not crack pots .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lugash
    I like this one better:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCDIYvFmgW8
    , @ThreeCranes
    A great song and a great performance. Who knew Walken had it in him!!?? Supports what I've said before that it's not so much that white men can't jump or that they don't have rhythm, it's that their body sense is different than that of blacks. Personally, I can't watch the NBA without seeing thugs. I prefer the way white guys move.

    I often hum that song when inline skating. It puts a certain syncopated beat into the stroke. People on the trail smile as I pass by cause they can see I'm enjoying myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. donut says:

    Chris exorcising the ghosts of the Overlook Hotel and deflating Stanley’s pretensions to being an exceptional artist .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Nemo says:

    I think you were all right about it:

    “From Meroe the Roman party travelled 600 miles up the White Nile, until they reached the swamp-like Sudd in what is now southern Sudan, a fetid wetland filled with ferns, papyrus reeds and thick mats of rotting vegetation. In the rainy season it covers an area larger than England, with a vast humid swamp teeming with mosquitoes and other insects. The only large animals in the Sudd were the crocodiles and hippos that occupied the muddy pools within its vast expanse. Those who entered this region had to endure severe heat and risk disease and starvation. The Sudd was discovered to be too deep to be crossed safely on foot, but its waters were also too shallow to be explored any further by boat. The Romans ‘reached an area where the swamp could only bear a small boat containing one person’. At this point the party despaired of ever finding a definite source for the Nile and turned back reluctantly to report their findings to the emperor in Rome. They had probably reached a position nearly 1,500 miles south of the Roman-Egyptian border.”

    — Raoul McLaughlin, Desert Legions: The Romans in Africa, History Today, Volume 64, Issue 6, June 2014

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Achilles says:

    With respect to the Sahara-as-a-barrier theory, keep in mind the Sahara was a grassland 6,000 years ago.

    One of the things swept under the rug by establishment historians and archaeologists is the compelling evidence that Sumerians conquered the Upper Nile civilization in the pre-dynastic period and then went on to conquer the Lower Nile. There are youtube videos in which Egyptologist David Rohl lays out the evidence for this, which he calls Egyptian Genesis.

    Since to the victors go the women, that likely resulted in a significant infusion of Middle Eastern genes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Surely you mean the Sumerians may have conquered the lower Nile and thence the upper Nile?

    Why (and how) would an army marching from Sumer wind up in southern Egypt and then march north toward the delta?!
    , @Glossy
    First, this is extremely unlikely. Ancient Egyptian writing, political system, art, architecture, etc. had nothing in common with the Sumerian counterparts.

    Second, if Sumerians did conquer Egypt, they would have started with the Lower part. That's the north of the country. The Nile flows from south to north, from higher ground to lower. Gravity, remember? So the part of Egypt that's closest to the Middle East is the Lower part.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. KunioKun says:

    There is a theory that a big chunk of the northern half of Africa was not desert for quite a while. When the weather changed the lakes in the north dried up and people were divided up by the desert that remained behind. The people stuck in the north ended up creating Egypt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. This is the reason for Egypt’s collapse – miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). This combined with Islamic concubinage and polygamy destroyed the North Africans. Today average North African IQ is 84. The same thing happened in India. The original Indians were Aryans. They then mixed with Asians and destroyed their culture. Average Indian IQ 83.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Taco

    This is the reason for Egypt’s collapse – miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa
     
    Muslim conquest of Egypt did not occur until hundreds of years after the last of the Ptolemaic pharaohs had died. And the Ptolemies were Greek. The last native Egyptian dynasty was conquered by the Persians centuries before that.

    Egypt may have had miscegenation with sub-saharan Africans, which may even have led to its downfall. But that downfall occurred long before the Muslims showed up on the scene.
    , @Hapalong Cassidy
    I think you have that completely backwards about India. The original inhabitants of India were dark-skinned Australoids. They were invaded by Caucasians from the Middle East (who founded the Indus Valley civilization), and later came even lighter-skinned Caucasians from Afghanistan and Central Asia (the Aryans). If anything, those successive invasions raised the overall IQ of India. East Asian admixture in India - which would only come from the Himalayan and Burmese border regions - has always been minimal.
    , @Anonymous
    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.
    , @QueenAma
    The original Egyptians were not Caucasian. That's ridiculous. Seriously, it's 2017...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. SPMoore8 says:

    I remember reading about Hatshepsut who was a female pharoah in the middle of the second millennium (i.e., around 1500 BC) and how she sent an expedition to “the land of Punt”, and among other things the pictures of that trip showed an ample and also somewhat obese Puntian queen. (The queen doesn’t appear particularly African in the picture.) The point being, Punt is usually located somewhere along the Horn of Africa, which implies Red Sea travel. So I’m sure some of that was going on, as well.

    So the Nile would have been one vector for SSA travel, but so would the Red Sea.

    Also that reminds me that I think in Herodotus there’s some reference to SSA coming up out of the desert into the Mediterranean coastal area. So that link was not entirely severed 2,500 years ago.

    Finally, the main import of the article is that the notion of high level SSA influence in Ancient Egypt seems pretty weak. However, getting back to Hatshepsut, some of the portraits of men look pretty dark and SSA in their facial features. DNA doesn’t lie, so I assume this means that the picture in question was perhaps misunderstood.

    BTW. the reign of Hatshepsut is interesting because it came about after a period of domination of Egypt by the “Hyksos” who came from West Asia (all of this, including Hatshepsut, centuries before the “Dark Ages”). The identity of this group, which, among other things practiced widespread animal husbandry and the use of chariots, is still a mystery. Indo European and Semitic origins (or blendings) have both been argued but not to anyone’s satisfaction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    I recently read the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. The authors seemed pretty confident that the Hyksos were West Semitic speakers from what's now southern Israel/Palestine. West Semitic is the branch of Semitic that's now mostly represented by Arabic and Hebrew.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Felix.. says:

    The Nubians conquered Egypt in the period around 700B.C. and established the so called Kushite Empire which lasted nearly a century. The timeframe measured in the study encompasses this period.

    I’d say occupying Egypt for a hundred years would be plenty of time for an orgy or two with the conquered Egyptian women. I’d guess this explains the increased sub-saharan admixture in the Egyptian population over the period 1300BC-0AD as much if not more than any slave trade.

    Remember: We Wuz Kangz!

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Lugash says:
    @donut
    I am sure I put this up before but I will again just because :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxZAuC9SuGo

    I hope Red Bone got paid . Chris is an eccentric ingenious . Most of us are just eccentric . If not crack pots .

    I like this one better:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. A few months ago I caught this documentary and I found it intriguing. The geologists (or paleobotanists, or whomever) seem to conclude the Sahara, although once verdant and, indeed, once a sea, has been the blistering thing we now know for about three million years. The consensus seems to be that humans left Africa two million years ago. This perhaps suggests a trickle – some isolated, freakish wanderers, and a genetic bottleneck – that might help explain why Africans are so different from the rest of us. Aside from those brave, foolish, or lucky early leavers, perhaps hardly anyone bothered the trek, at least until the camel was domesticated or sailing in the Arabian Sea advanced to some degree….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    I think this is one of history's great mysteries, what drove the first people to cross the Sahara to do so? Even with the camel you have to know something is on the other side to make it worth your while.

    Even today African migrants die by the hundreds if not thousands crossing the desert every year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Glossy
    The ancient Egyptians had all sort of dealings with Nubia (Sudan) throughout the pharaonic period. They sometimes went further than that, into Punt, which I think was the Djibuti/Somalia region. Egyptians ruled Nubia for long periods of time. There were shorter periods when Nubians ruled Egypt.

    However, Egypt was much more fertile than any part of Black Africa. The Nile valley's population density must have been higher by several orders of magnitude. This is why Egypt was never overwhelmed by blacks demographically.

    The pathogens and megafauna were likely much less a problem so far north, too (as Steve has observed).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Achilles
    With respect to the Sahara-as-a-barrier theory, keep in mind the Sahara was a grassland 6,000 years ago.

    One of the things swept under the rug by establishment historians and archaeologists is the compelling evidence that Sumerians conquered the Upper Nile civilization in the pre-dynastic period and then went on to conquer the Lower Nile. There are youtube videos in which Egyptologist David Rohl lays out the evidence for this, which he calls Egyptian Genesis.

    Since to the victors go the women, that likely resulted in a significant infusion of Middle Eastern genes.

    Surely you mean the Sumerians may have conquered the lower Nile and thence the upper Nile?

    Why (and how) would an army marching from Sumer wind up in southern Egypt and then march north toward the delta?!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achilles
    It's a fascinating story uncovered among other places in rock carvings in the the wadis to the east of the Upper Nile where the Sumerians left evidence of their crossing from the Red Sea to the Nile. Channel Four in the UK broadcast a David Rohl documentary on this some years back but only the French version appears to be on youtube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj-84KwvcOQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @donut
    I am sure I put this up before but I will again just because :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxZAuC9SuGo

    I hope Red Bone got paid . Chris is an eccentric ingenious . Most of us are just eccentric . If not crack pots .

    A great song and a great performance. Who knew Walken had it in him!!?? Supports what I’ve said before that it’s not so much that white men can’t jump or that they don’t have rhythm, it’s that their body sense is different than that of blacks. Personally, I can’t watch the NBA without seeing thugs. I prefer the way white guys move.

    I often hum that song when inline skating. It puts a certain syncopated beat into the stroke. People on the trail smile as I pass by cause they can see I’m enjoying myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Like the great David Byrne.
    , @Shbkyn shabaka
    And so who are you calling thug? Thug.
    Who are the thugs who went around the world stealing killing holding people in slave? Hadn't been fot that you would still be in Europe with nothing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Glossy says: • Website
    @el supremo
    The integration of Egypt into the broader slave trading system of the Islamic world is the most likely explanation.

    In the classical world, Egypt saw moderate movements of people from other Mediterranean regions (Jews, Greek mercenaries and merchants, Roman soldiers, etc settled there in notable numbers). But there was not a need to draw slaves from Subsaharan Africa - Egypt had enough local farmers and any urban slaves came from other regions of the broader Greco-Roman world.

    The Muslim conquest changed these patterns - by connecting Egypt to Muslim trading networks extending into Africa, and more importantly the Islamic requirement that only non-Muslims could be enslaved. The pagan subsaharan Africans so became a major source of slaves.

    The flow of military slaves to support the Mameluk dynasties from the Ukraine and Circassia also brought new populations into Egypt in the Islamic era, especially after 1200 or so.

    The flow of military slaves to support the Mameluk dynasties from the Ukraine and Circassia

    There were two types of Mamlukes: nomadic Turkic-speakers from the steppes and Caucasus natives. A part of the steppes is in the Ukraine now and a lot of the future Mamlukes were transported through the Crimea, but it’s a bit misleading to say that these people were from the Ukraine. They were Central Asian -stan types.

    Also, the size of the Mamluke armies was tiny. Thousands, sometimes low tens of thousands. Egypt’s population was 3 to 4 million then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock:

    http://marchofthetitans.com/2013/03/05/nordic-desert-empire-ancient-egypt/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patrick Harris
    If by "Nordic" you mean people whose genetic distinctiveness was the product of living and evolving in Northern Europe, this is absolutely absurd. Phenotypes are not genotypes.
    , @Glossy
    The ancient Egyptians were a people with Caucasoid facial features and brown skin, not unlike modern East Indians. In fact I've read of an ancient Greek author saying that Indians looked like Egyptians to him.
    , @AndrewR
    We wuz viking pharoahz!
    , @Ari
    Wæ wüz køngs thæn?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock
     
    Perhaps in the sense Julia Child used the term:

    http://www.food.com/amp/recipe/master-recipe-for-basic-stock-julia-child-446950

    (NB: Either there's a typo in that recipe, or it was transcribed by Whiskey– "…scum wills tart to rise…")
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Luke Lea says:

    References to camels notwithstanding, there is a case to be made for the pre-Mosaic origins of the Patriarchal Narratives based on the unusual sociological realities at the end of the Bronze age, a period characterized demographic collapse and urban decay, which suggests that Palestine may have been a relatively sparsely settled region into which peaceful migration was a possibility that later disappeared. Here is George Roux’s description in his book, Ancient Iraq:

    Before that time, i.e., before the introduction of the camel around 1200 B.C., which made long-distance travel possible, the nomads, who rode on asses and practiced sheep-rearing, were much more restricted in their movements than the Bedouins of today and could not wander far beyond the limits of the grassy steppe which extends between the Tigris and Euphrates and at the foot of the Zagros, the Taurus and the Lebanon. There they were in close and constant touch with the agricultural populations which bought their sheep and supplied them with grain, dates, tools, weapons, and other utilitarian objects and amenities. . . . In general the two groups met regularly in villages or in market-places outside the gates of the cities, and exchanged goods, together, no doubt, with a number of ideas. Then the nomads returned to the steppe, perhaps only a few miles away. Occasionally, individuals left the tribe as Lot did in Sodom to Find work in the towns as mercenaries, craftsmen, or merchants. Sometimes a family, a clan, or a whole tribe would acquire (or be granted) land and devote itself partly to agriculture, partly to sheep-breeding. Not infrequently the local governments exercised some control over the nomads, using them in particular as auxiliary troops whenever required.

    For how this all fits together (and where the Hebraic conception of God may have come from) you will have to go here: https://goo.gl/kO3Wzk

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    “The end of the period is marked by the abandonment of the cities and a return to lifestyles based on farming villages and semi-nomadic herding, although specialised craft production continued and trade routes remained open.”

    This is when the Patriarchal Narratives would have been set, except that this refers to Palestine not at the end of the Bronze Age but circa 2000 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Glossy says: • Website
    @Achilles
    With respect to the Sahara-as-a-barrier theory, keep in mind the Sahara was a grassland 6,000 years ago.

    One of the things swept under the rug by establishment historians and archaeologists is the compelling evidence that Sumerians conquered the Upper Nile civilization in the pre-dynastic period and then went on to conquer the Lower Nile. There are youtube videos in which Egyptologist David Rohl lays out the evidence for this, which he calls Egyptian Genesis.

    Since to the victors go the women, that likely resulted in a significant infusion of Middle Eastern genes.

    First, this is extremely unlikely. Ancient Egyptian writing, political system, art, architecture, etc. had nothing in common with the Sumerian counterparts.

    Second, if Sumerians did conquer Egypt, they would have started with the Lower part. That’s the north of the country. The Nile flows from south to north, from higher ground to lower. Gravity, remember? So the part of Egypt that’s closest to the Middle East is the Lower part.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Achilles says:
    @Autochthon
    Surely you mean the Sumerians may have conquered the lower Nile and thence the upper Nile?

    Why (and how) would an army marching from Sumer wind up in southern Egypt and then march north toward the delta?!

    It’s a fascinating story uncovered among other places in rock carvings in the the wadis to the east of the Upper Nile where the Sumerians left evidence of their crossing from the Red Sea to the Nile. Channel Four in the UK broadcast a David Rohl documentary on this some years back but only the French version appears to be on youtube:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Did the Nile get diverted to the Red Sea at one point?

    Rivers don't always follow the same path. For example, the Los Angeles River flowed west to Marina Del Rey until 1825 when it switched to flowing south to what's now the L.A. Harbor.

    , @Autochthon
    Thanks; I'll check it out. I want to read Luke's paper too.

    The film I pointed out has scads of evidence from credible sources (oceanographers, archaeologists, and geologists from respectable universities; satellite data from NASA's radar; etc.) that the Sahara had megalakes even after it was created three million years ago, and networks of rivers connecting these, making travel across it easier whan one might have thought. There were even permanent settlements in these areas. The kicker is the place cycles like clockwork between this relative abundance and desolation based upon the slight wobbling of the Earth's rotation. I believ the interval is twenty thousand years. It's due to be relatively moist again in about fifteen thousand years....

    This stuff is solidly within my avocations; it's less vexing than the ongoing sociopolitical poop-shows and more exciting than golf (to each his own, of course); many thanks, Steve!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Re: …anthropologist Carleton Coon…

    Trigger warning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Personal theory on the reason for the gap.

    1. Efficiency setbacks: The lack of the wheel and horse simply made ancient sub-Saharans labour more in the field. It reduced the scope of conquests and communications. Why there was an sudden jump with the introduction of the horse and camel. I’ll do that thing now in with historians and make a sweeping claim. The Eurasian invention of the wheel is the primary reason for the technological gap enjoyed by that region.

    2. Geography: Poor soil and farmland aside, the real killer IMO was the lack of navigable rivers. I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage and compared to a wagon, camels and horses are still inefficient transport means.

    3. Terrible Luck: Now by all indications, civilizations in Sub-A have tended to hit the Malthusian trap pretty quickly. Think of Rome without the Mediterranean supplying it, taking us back to the wheel and navigable waterways. But Sub-A was and still is prone to population booms, thanks to a cluster of fertile soil in West Africa and Eastern Africa and the Congo area. Now due to a lack of private land tenure, wealth was often held in labour, i.e slaves. Why any cursory glance through Sub-A will see their ubiquity. Now as we know, intensive cultivation by private landowners as opposed to slave labour provides incentives which lead to greater production.

    But the luck really compounds with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Europe loses a chunk of its population to the black death, Asia and East and North Africa aren’t spared either. The Americas are decimated by European diseases, so a growing global economy has a labour crisis. Sub-A, no doubt behind the Sahara has the “luck” to have been spared the ravages of the disease, thus it boasts a surplus population.

    Long short, the chaos of the slave trade regresses development, colonialism stagnates it. Be snide all you want about the post independence era, but these are the continents best growth numbers ever.

    Now this is still a rough theory, but it strikes me as more plausible than genetics, though I clearly have a personal stake in the issue.

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren’t attractive, they really aren’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glossy
    Best guess about the cause of what you call the gap: farming in higher latitudes selects for higher IQ. There is a correlation between latitude and the mean IQ of the descendants of farmers both in the Europe-Middle East-Africa region and in the East Asia-Oceania region.
    , @anonguy

    I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage
     
    It is an eye-opener reading about that institution, one that seems to have faded from memory. Some of the places colonized by Europeans have some very legitimate gripes....
    , @Ed
    This post is just off.

    1. African agriculture was never labor intensive compared to Europe or Asia. In Africa most of the harvesting was done by women.

    2. African rivers are navigable enough. Sure the falls of some rivers are real barriers but even in the navigable rivers you don't see the rivers used much for trade except for the Nile.

    3. The European labor shortage had already corrected itself by the time of colonization. The reality is that life for many Europeans was already decent enough to try their luck in untamed hostile lands. The French, long the most populous people in Western Europe, never migrated in large numbers.

    You should watch the latest episode of Skip Gates Africa civilizations series. During colonialism many Africans owned sophisticated businesses. He mentioned one family that ran a palm oil trading business that had extensive dealings with London.

    , @Yak-15
    This is a well-constructed, plausible explanation. I still believe the overwhelming evidence I have seen/gathered points to a genetic explanation.

    But I will use your reasoning when talking to SWPLs because it makes it appear as though I did a lot of complex thinking to affirm their pious worldview.
    , @Salger

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren’t attractive, they really aren’t.
     
    The hordes of Blacks and other muds performing sex crimes on White females while the other way around doesn't happen points otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Glossy says: • Website
    @SPMoore8
    I remember reading about Hatshepsut who was a female pharoah in the middle of the second millennium (i.e., around 1500 BC) and how she sent an expedition to "the land of Punt", and among other things the pictures of that trip showed an ample and also somewhat obese Puntian queen. (The queen doesn't appear particularly African in the picture.) The point being, Punt is usually located somewhere along the Horn of Africa, which implies Red Sea travel. So I'm sure some of that was going on, as well.

    So the Nile would have been one vector for SSA travel, but so would the Red Sea.

    Also that reminds me that I think in Herodotus there's some reference to SSA coming up out of the desert into the Mediterranean coastal area. So that link was not entirely severed 2,500 years ago.

    Finally, the main import of the article is that the notion of high level SSA influence in Ancient Egypt seems pretty weak. However, getting back to Hatshepsut, some of the portraits of men look pretty dark and SSA in their facial features. DNA doesn't lie, so I assume this means that the picture in question was perhaps misunderstood.

    BTW. the reign of Hatshepsut is interesting because it came about after a period of domination of Egypt by the "Hyksos" who came from West Asia (all of this, including Hatshepsut, centuries before the "Dark Ages"). The identity of this group, which, among other things practiced widespread animal husbandry and the use of chariots, is still a mystery. Indo European and Semitic origins (or blendings) have both been argued but not to anyone's satisfaction.

    I recently read the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. The authors seemed pretty confident that the Hyksos were West Semitic speakers from what’s now southern Israel/Palestine. West Semitic is the branch of Semitic that’s now mostly represented by Arabic and Hebrew.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Right, some of the evidence is interpreted as West Semitic, and some is interpreted as Indo European, particularly as it pertains to animal husbandry and chariots. That is why I also used the term "blending". Timewise, I can see some possible contact between the Hittite or proto-Hittite group which shared the IE focus on livestock and chariots with Semites who then invaded Egypt. That would make sense. The Hittites themselves got into contact with Egypt later, under Akhenaten, but those letters weren't discovered until the 1870's and Hittite wasn't id'd as IE until the turn of the last century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Achilles
    It's a fascinating story uncovered among other places in rock carvings in the the wadis to the east of the Upper Nile where the Sumerians left evidence of their crossing from the Red Sea to the Nile. Channel Four in the UK broadcast a David Rohl documentary on this some years back but only the French version appears to be on youtube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj-84KwvcOQ

    Did the Nile get diverted to the Red Sea at one point?

    Rivers don’t always follow the same path. For example, the Los Angeles River flowed west to Marina Del Rey until 1825 when it switched to flowing south to what’s now the L.A. Harbor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achilles
    The Nile was not connected to the Red Sea during the time period in question here. The Sumerians had to drag their boats over land to reach the wadis (which are dry now but presumably were not then) which connected to the Nile.

    One suspects that in the ancient world there was quite a bit more conquest of one people by another people who became the ruling elite than our contemporary academic establishment would like to admit.
    , @donut
    Jesus Christ on a cross if you can't be bothered to read a history book then at least use google .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs
    , @(((Owen)))
    The Mississippi's natural course is down the Atchafalaya, missing New Orleans and its port by 100 miles. It takes heroic engineering effort to keep it where it is.

    The Chicago River naturally runs from central Illinois northeast into Lake Michigan. But for a century it's been running southwest from Chicago into the Mississippi. That's also a man-made reversal that required extreme amounts of earth moving.

    So yes, rivers change.
    , @backup
    The Nile has flowed that way for millions of years, dating back to a time that the Mediterranean was not connected to the Altlantic and was an almost dry salt lake with a surface substantially below sea level, not unlike a gigantic version of the Dead Sea. Underneath the current Nile is a huge valley that was carved out discharging into this lake, sometimes called the Eonile. When the Mediterranean got reconnected to the Atlantic this valley eventually filled up with sediment.

    The Rhone has a somewhat similar history.

    https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/remsens/Nile/geology.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Taco says:
    @attilathehen
    This is the reason for Egypt's collapse - miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). This combined with Islamic concubinage and polygamy destroyed the North Africans. Today average North African IQ is 84. The same thing happened in India. The original Indians were Aryans. They then mixed with Asians and destroyed their culture. Average Indian IQ 83.

    This is the reason for Egypt’s collapse – miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa

    Muslim conquest of Egypt did not occur until hundreds of years after the last of the Ptolemaic pharaohs had died. And the Ptolemies were Greek. The last native Egyptian dynasty was conquered by the Persians centuries before that.

    Egypt may have had miscegenation with sub-saharan Africans, which may even have led to its downfall. But that downfall occurred long before the Muslims showed up on the scene.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    True, this doesn't happen overnight. I suspect the miscegenation started with the downfall of Rameses. By Cleopatra's time (she was Macedonian/Iranian), Egypt was pretty much gone. Big picture, black/Asian mixing is very bad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Anonymous
    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock:

    http://marchofthetitans.com/2013/03/05/nordic-desert-empire-ancient-egypt/

    If by “Nordic” you mean people whose genetic distinctiveness was the product of living and evolving in Northern Europe, this is absolutely absurd. Phenotypes are not genotypes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Achilles says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Did the Nile get diverted to the Red Sea at one point?

    Rivers don't always follow the same path. For example, the Los Angeles River flowed west to Marina Del Rey until 1825 when it switched to flowing south to what's now the L.A. Harbor.

    The Nile was not connected to the Red Sea during the time period in question here. The Sumerians had to drag their boats over land to reach the wadis (which are dry now but presumably were not then) which connected to the Nile.

    One suspects that in the ancient world there was quite a bit more conquest of one people by another people who became the ruling elite than our contemporary academic establishment would like to admit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Glossy says: • Website
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    Personal theory on the reason for the gap.

    1. Efficiency setbacks: The lack of the wheel and horse simply made ancient sub-Saharans labour more in the field. It reduced the scope of conquests and communications. Why there was an sudden jump with the introduction of the horse and camel. I'll do that thing now in with historians and make a sweeping claim. The Eurasian invention of the wheel is the primary reason for the technological gap enjoyed by that region.

    2. Geography: Poor soil and farmland aside, the real killer IMO was the lack of navigable rivers. I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage and compared to a wagon, camels and horses are still inefficient transport means.

    3. Terrible Luck: Now by all indications, civilizations in Sub-A have tended to hit the Malthusian trap pretty quickly. Think of Rome without the Mediterranean supplying it, taking us back to the wheel and navigable waterways. But Sub-A was and still is prone to population booms, thanks to a cluster of fertile soil in West Africa and Eastern Africa and the Congo area. Now due to a lack of private land tenure, wealth was often held in labour, i.e slaves. Why any cursory glance through Sub-A will see their ubiquity. Now as we know, intensive cultivation by private landowners as opposed to slave labour provides incentives which lead to greater production.

    But the luck really compounds with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Europe loses a chunk of its population to the black death, Asia and East and North Africa aren't spared either. The Americas are decimated by European diseases, so a growing global economy has a labour crisis. Sub-A, no doubt behind the Sahara has the "luck" to have been spared the ravages of the disease, thus it boasts a surplus population.

    Long short, the chaos of the slave trade regresses development, colonialism stagnates it. Be snide all you want about the post independence era, but these are the continents best growth numbers ever.

    Now this is still a rough theory, but it strikes me as more plausible than genetics, though I clearly have a personal stake in the issue.

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren't attractive, they really aren't.

    Best guess about the cause of what you call the gap: farming in higher latitudes selects for higher IQ. There is a correlation between latitude and the mean IQ of the descendants of farmers both in the Europe-Middle East-Africa region and in the East Asia-Oceania region.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. anonguy says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    Personal theory on the reason for the gap.

    1. Efficiency setbacks: The lack of the wheel and horse simply made ancient sub-Saharans labour more in the field. It reduced the scope of conquests and communications. Why there was an sudden jump with the introduction of the horse and camel. I'll do that thing now in with historians and make a sweeping claim. The Eurasian invention of the wheel is the primary reason for the technological gap enjoyed by that region.

    2. Geography: Poor soil and farmland aside, the real killer IMO was the lack of navigable rivers. I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage and compared to a wagon, camels and horses are still inefficient transport means.

    3. Terrible Luck: Now by all indications, civilizations in Sub-A have tended to hit the Malthusian trap pretty quickly. Think of Rome without the Mediterranean supplying it, taking us back to the wheel and navigable waterways. But Sub-A was and still is prone to population booms, thanks to a cluster of fertile soil in West Africa and Eastern Africa and the Congo area. Now due to a lack of private land tenure, wealth was often held in labour, i.e slaves. Why any cursory glance through Sub-A will see their ubiquity. Now as we know, intensive cultivation by private landowners as opposed to slave labour provides incentives which lead to greater production.

    But the luck really compounds with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Europe loses a chunk of its population to the black death, Asia and East and North Africa aren't spared either. The Americas are decimated by European diseases, so a growing global economy has a labour crisis. Sub-A, no doubt behind the Sahara has the "luck" to have been spared the ravages of the disease, thus it boasts a surplus population.

    Long short, the chaos of the slave trade regresses development, colonialism stagnates it. Be snide all you want about the post independence era, but these are the continents best growth numbers ever.

    Now this is still a rough theory, but it strikes me as more plausible than genetics, though I clearly have a personal stake in the issue.

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren't attractive, they really aren't.

    I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage

    It is an eye-opener reading about that institution, one that seems to have faded from memory. Some of the places colonized by Europeans have some very legitimate gripes….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Nephew
    In WWI the Brits used African porters when they chased von Lettow-Vorbeck's forces (who also used them) all round East Africa without ever apprehending them. Porters suffered huge casualties from disease (and the columns took food where they could, causing starvation).

    90% of the British casualties were among their porters.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck#East_African_war_and_the_population

    https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/when-two-bulls-clash-the-grass-suffers-world-war-1-in-east-africa
    , @Expletive Deleted

    To deliver one kilogram of rice to the interior it could take 50 kilograms of rice at the coast—most of it being consumed en route to feed all the porters needed to carry it inland. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Corps
     
    So the evil Brits, cackling evilly, as is our wont, said "stuff this for a game of soldiers, we need a proper railway like back 'ome. You lot can sling yer 'ook. Garn, clear off, and put yer feet up".
    Which annoyed the locals even more.
    http://www.monitor.co.ug/SpecialReports/ugandaat50/-/1370466/1394816/-/uicvf8z/-/index.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Glossy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock:

    http://marchofthetitans.com/2013/03/05/nordic-desert-empire-ancient-egypt/

    The ancient Egyptians were a people with Caucasoid facial features and brown skin, not unlike modern East Indians. In fact I’ve read of an ancient Greek author saying that Indians looked like Egyptians to him.

    Read More
    • Agree: syonredux
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. SPMoore8 says:
    @Glossy
    I recently read the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. The authors seemed pretty confident that the Hyksos were West Semitic speakers from what's now southern Israel/Palestine. West Semitic is the branch of Semitic that's now mostly represented by Arabic and Hebrew.

    Right, some of the evidence is interpreted as West Semitic, and some is interpreted as Indo European, particularly as it pertains to animal husbandry and chariots. That is why I also used the term “blending”. Timewise, I can see some possible contact between the Hittite or proto-Hittite group which shared the IE focus on livestock and chariots with Semites who then invaded Egypt. That would make sense. The Hittites themselves got into contact with Egypt later, under Akhenaten, but those letters weren’t discovered until the 1870′s and Hittite wasn’t id’d as IE until the turn of the last century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @attilathehen
    This is the reason for Egypt's collapse - miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). This combined with Islamic concubinage and polygamy destroyed the North Africans. Today average North African IQ is 84. The same thing happened in India. The original Indians were Aryans. They then mixed with Asians and destroyed their culture. Average Indian IQ 83.

    I think you have that completely backwards about India. The original inhabitants of India were dark-skinned Australoids. They were invaded by Caucasians from the Middle East (who founded the Indus Valley civilization), and later came even lighter-skinned Caucasians from Afghanistan and Central Asia (the Aryans). If anything, those successive invasions raised the overall IQ of India. East Asian admixture in India – which would only come from the Himalayan and Burmese border regions – has always been minimal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Maybe. But the end result: IQ loss through miscegenation with blacks/Asians.
    , @rw95
    Scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was created by the indigenous Dravidian peoples of India. The Vedic Civilization which succeeded it was a synthesis of the IVC Dravidian and Aryan invader cultures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. donut says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Did the Nile get diverted to the Red Sea at one point?

    Rivers don't always follow the same path. For example, the Los Angeles River flowed west to Marina Del Rey until 1825 when it switched to flowing south to what's now the L.A. Harbor.

    Jesus Christ on a cross if you can’t be bothered to read a history book then at least use google .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kyle a
    Jesus Christ.....that the first I've heard that fellas name used around here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    This is the reason for Egypt's collapse - miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). This combined with Islamic concubinage and polygamy destroyed the North Africans. Today average North African IQ is 84. The same thing happened in India. The original Indians were Aryans. They then mixed with Asians and destroyed their culture. Average Indian IQ 83.

    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    If the Australoids are related to the Australian aborgines, sometimes they are considered black, some Asian. Again, big picture: mixing with blacks/Asians destroys IQ.
    , @syonredux

    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.
     
    Australoids are not Caucasoids. They are typically placed in their own grouping, hence the familiar list: Caucasoid, Mongoloid (usually called East Asian these days), Amerind, Sub-Saharan African, etc.
    , @syonredux
    Razib Khan has frequently discussed the origins of South Asians:

    To a great extent it recapitulates the results of the 2009 paper Reconstructing Indian Population History. What you see to the left is the “ANI-ASI cline.” Basically South Asians, from Pashtuns all the way to Paniyas fall along a spectrum of genetic distance from West Asian and European populations. A secondary element is that some groups, such as Bengalis and many Austro-Asiatic tribes, are shifted toward East Asians. An old hypothesis of the ethnogenesis of South Asian peoples is that they are a variegated mix of “Caucasoid” populations intrusive to the subcontinent, which was originally inhabited by an “Australoid" element. Though these terms are somewhat archaic, the general point seems to get at something visually clear: some South Asians look nearly Mediterranean in appearance, while others are hard to distinguish from Australian Aboriginals (at least superficially). And of course, most of us are somewhere in the middle.

    The insight of the Reich group was to use Andaman Islanders as a proxy for a primal indigenous population, and infer that the admixture alluded to above consisted of a very West Eurasian-like population, the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), and an indigenous group closer to East Eurasians, though very diverged, the Ancestral South Indians (ASI). Ergo, the ANI-ASI cline. Using the most closely related population to infer the “ghost population,” they were able to infer admixture proportions even though no “pure” ASI group was available as a reference against which they could judge. Clever strategies like this are important, because the reference populations you use to adduce admixture events (or lack thereof) strongly impact the nature of your results. Using simple PCA or model-based clustering, as with ADMIXTURE, one would fix South Indian Dalits and tribal populations as the “purest” aboriginal people. ~100% “Australoid.” And other groups could be modeled as a “Caucasoid/Australoid” mix. But this model was not satisfactory because even low caste South Indian groups were more shifted toward West Eurasians than you’d expect.

     

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/south-asians-are-not-descended-from-four-populations/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Kemet says:

    You’re a complete lost ignoramus! Everything you said is completely false!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @Achilles
    It's a fascinating story uncovered among other places in rock carvings in the the wadis to the east of the Upper Nile where the Sumerians left evidence of their crossing from the Red Sea to the Nile. Channel Four in the UK broadcast a David Rohl documentary on this some years back but only the French version appears to be on youtube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj-84KwvcOQ

    Thanks; I’ll check it out. I want to read Luke’s paper too.

    The film I pointed out has scads of evidence from credible sources (oceanographers, archaeologists, and geologists from respectable universities; satellite data from NASA’s radar; etc.) that the Sahara had megalakes even after it was created three million years ago, and networks of rivers connecting these, making travel across it easier whan one might have thought. There were even permanent settlements in these areas. The kicker is the place cycles like clockwork between this relative abundance and desolation based upon the slight wobbling of the Earth’s rotation. I believ the interval is twenty thousand years. It’s due to be relatively moist again in about fifteen thousand years….

    This stuff is solidly within my avocations; it’s less vexing than the ongoing sociopolitical poop-shows and more exciting than golf (to each his own, of course); many thanks, Steve!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Well, All of Europe is turning into Egypt or North Afrope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. WGG says:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudd

    The name of the swamp is called “Sudd” and apparently it means “barrier”. Interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Taco

    This is the reason for Egypt’s collapse – miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa
     
    Muslim conquest of Egypt did not occur until hundreds of years after the last of the Ptolemaic pharaohs had died. And the Ptolemies were Greek. The last native Egyptian dynasty was conquered by the Persians centuries before that.

    Egypt may have had miscegenation with sub-saharan Africans, which may even have led to its downfall. But that downfall occurred long before the Muslims showed up on the scene.

    True, this doesn’t happen overnight. I suspect the miscegenation started with the downfall of Rameses. By Cleopatra’s time (she was Macedonian/Iranian), Egypt was pretty much gone. Big picture, black/Asian mixing is very bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Hapalong Cassidy
    I think you have that completely backwards about India. The original inhabitants of India were dark-skinned Australoids. They were invaded by Caucasians from the Middle East (who founded the Indus Valley civilization), and later came even lighter-skinned Caucasians from Afghanistan and Central Asia (the Aryans). If anything, those successive invasions raised the overall IQ of India. East Asian admixture in India - which would only come from the Himalayan and Burmese border regions - has always been minimal.

    Maybe. But the end result: IQ loss through miscegenation with blacks/Asians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Anonymous
    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.

    If the Australoids are related to the Australian aborgines, sometimes they are considered black, some Asian. Again, big picture: mixing with blacks/Asians destroys IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Australian aborigines aren't considered black or Asian.
    , @Yak-15
    Mixing with Asians destroys IQ which is why our Ivy Leagues are devoid of their influence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. rw95 says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    I think you have that completely backwards about India. The original inhabitants of India were dark-skinned Australoids. They were invaded by Caucasians from the Middle East (who founded the Indus Valley civilization), and later came even lighter-skinned Caucasians from Afghanistan and Central Asia (the Aryans). If anything, those successive invasions raised the overall IQ of India. East Asian admixture in India - which would only come from the Himalayan and Burmese border regions - has always been minimal.

    Scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was created by the indigenous Dravidian peoples of India. The Vedic Civilization which succeeded it was a synthesis of the IVC Dravidian and Aryan invader cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was created by the indigenous Dravidian peoples of India." Could be. What's their evidence?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @attilathehen
    If the Australoids are related to the Australian aborgines, sometimes they are considered black, some Asian. Again, big picture: mixing with blacks/Asians destroys IQ.

    Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian.
     
    Nor are they Caucasoid; they are Australoid.
    , @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian."
    Yes. Their black skin is an illusion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.

    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.

    Australoids are not Caucasoids. They are typically placed in their own grouping, hence the familiar list: Caucasoid, Mongoloid (usually called East Asian these days), Amerind, Sub-Saharan African, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I never said they were Caucasoid. By "dark skinned Caucasoids", I was referring to Dravidians.
    , @anon
    I believe that Australian Aborigines are called Melanesians ?? Caucasian , Negroid , Mongoloid , Melanesian . I have not seen amerind get a separate category before ...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    Australian aborigines aren't considered black or Asian.

    Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian.

    Nor are they Caucasoid; they are Australoid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. syonredux says:
    @Anonymous
    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.

    Razib Khan has frequently discussed the origins of South Asians:

    To a great extent it recapitulates the results of the 2009 paper Reconstructing Indian Population History. What you see to the left is the “ANI-ASI cline.” Basically South Asians, from Pashtuns all the way to Paniyas fall along a spectrum of genetic distance from West Asian and European populations. A secondary element is that some groups, such as Bengalis and many Austro-Asiatic tribes, are shifted toward East Asians. An old hypothesis of the ethnogenesis of South Asian peoples is that they are a variegated mix of “Caucasoid” populations intrusive to the subcontinent, which was originally inhabited by an “Australoid” element. Though these terms are somewhat archaic, the general point seems to get at something visually clear: some South Asians look nearly Mediterranean in appearance, while others are hard to distinguish from Australian Aboriginals (at least superficially). And of course, most of us are somewhere in the middle.

    The insight of the Reich group was to use Andaman Islanders as a proxy for a primal indigenous population, and infer that the admixture alluded to above consisted of a very West Eurasian-like population, the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), and an indigenous group closer to East Eurasians, though very diverged, the Ancestral South Indians (ASI). Ergo, the ANI-ASI cline. Using the most closely related population to infer the “ghost population,” they were able to infer admixture proportions even though no “pure” ASI group was available as a reference against which they could judge. Clever strategies like this are important, because the reference populations you use to adduce admixture events (or lack thereof) strongly impact the nature of your results. Using simple PCA or model-based clustering, as with ADMIXTURE, one would fix South Indian Dalits and tribal populations as the “purest” aboriginal people. ~100% “Australoid.” And other groups could be modeled as a “Caucasoid/Australoid” mix. But this model was not satisfactory because even low caste South Indian groups were more shifted toward West Eurasians than you’d expect.

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/south-asians-are-not-descended-from-four-populations/

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan
    Thanks for posting that. Razib's GNXP really highlighted nuance and complexity inherent in these questions of population admixtures, and a lot of that knowledge aired in these parts thanks to Razib, is in danger of being lost. No point in dumbing ourselves down after learning what we have learned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @syonredux

    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.
     
    Australoids are not Caucasoids. They are typically placed in their own grouping, hence the familiar list: Caucasoid, Mongoloid (usually called East Asian these days), Amerind, Sub-Saharan African, etc.

    I never said they were Caucasoid. By “dark skinned Caucasoids”, I was referring to Dravidians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. A typical scene from 19th century Constantinople https://art.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/5659/slave-market-constantinople-dated-1838

    A black Egyptian selling a Greek slave girl to a Turk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Malaria?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @Anonymous
    Australian aborigines aren't considered black or Asian.

    “Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian.”
    Yes. Their black skin is an illusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    “Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian.”
    Yes. Their black skin is an illusion.
     
    I think that by "black' he means Sub-Saharan African-Negroid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. The first evidence for domesticated camels in the Sahara dates from the third century AD (much later than in Arabia). Trans-Saharan trade routes were established in the Islamic era.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_trade#Introduction_of_the_camel

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. Ed says:
    @Autochthon
    A few months ago I caught this documentary and I found it intriguing. The geologists (or paleobotanists, or whomever) seem to conclude the Sahara, although once verdant and, indeed, once a sea, has been the blistering thing we now know for about three million years. The consensus seems to be that humans left Africa two million years ago. This perhaps suggests a trickle – some isolated, freakish wanderers, and a genetic bottleneck – that might help explain why Africans are so different from the rest of us. Aside from those brave, foolish, or lucky early leavers, perhaps hardly anyone bothered the trek, at least until the camel was domesticated or sailing in the Arabian Sea advanced to some degree....

    I think this is one of history’s great mysteries, what drove the first people to cross the Sahara to do so? Even with the camel you have to know something is on the other side to make it worth your while.

    Even today African migrants die by the hundreds if not thousands crossing the desert every year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hodag
    I think the salt trade made folks go into the Sahara.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azalai
    , @dearieme
    Sailing (or rowing) round the Horn of Africa would have taught Egyptians (and others) that south of the Sahara lay slaves and ivory.

    Although I'm deeply sceptical about the yarn that Phoenicians in the service of the Pharaoh circumnavigated Africa, I find it easy to believe in the tales of Carthaginian exploration down the west coast.

    Another likelihood is that North Africans traded with the Taureg (in the camel era) and wanted to cross the desert simply to cut out the middle man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Steve Sailer
    Did the Nile get diverted to the Red Sea at one point?

    Rivers don't always follow the same path. For example, the Los Angeles River flowed west to Marina Del Rey until 1825 when it switched to flowing south to what's now the L.A. Harbor.

    The Mississippi’s natural course is down the Atchafalaya, missing New Orleans and its port by 100 miles. It takes heroic engineering effort to keep it where it is.

    The Chicago River naturally runs from central Illinois northeast into Lake Michigan. But for a century it’s been running southwest from Chicago into the Mississippi. That’s also a man-made reversal that required extreme amounts of earth moving.

    So yes, rivers change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Ed says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    Personal theory on the reason for the gap.

    1. Efficiency setbacks: The lack of the wheel and horse simply made ancient sub-Saharans labour more in the field. It reduced the scope of conquests and communications. Why there was an sudden jump with the introduction of the horse and camel. I'll do that thing now in with historians and make a sweeping claim. The Eurasian invention of the wheel is the primary reason for the technological gap enjoyed by that region.

    2. Geography: Poor soil and farmland aside, the real killer IMO was the lack of navigable rivers. I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage and compared to a wagon, camels and horses are still inefficient transport means.

    3. Terrible Luck: Now by all indications, civilizations in Sub-A have tended to hit the Malthusian trap pretty quickly. Think of Rome without the Mediterranean supplying it, taking us back to the wheel and navigable waterways. But Sub-A was and still is prone to population booms, thanks to a cluster of fertile soil in West Africa and Eastern Africa and the Congo area. Now due to a lack of private land tenure, wealth was often held in labour, i.e slaves. Why any cursory glance through Sub-A will see their ubiquity. Now as we know, intensive cultivation by private landowners as opposed to slave labour provides incentives which lead to greater production.

    But the luck really compounds with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Europe loses a chunk of its population to the black death, Asia and East and North Africa aren't spared either. The Americas are decimated by European diseases, so a growing global economy has a labour crisis. Sub-A, no doubt behind the Sahara has the "luck" to have been spared the ravages of the disease, thus it boasts a surplus population.

    Long short, the chaos of the slave trade regresses development, colonialism stagnates it. Be snide all you want about the post independence era, but these are the continents best growth numbers ever.

    Now this is still a rough theory, but it strikes me as more plausible than genetics, though I clearly have a personal stake in the issue.

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren't attractive, they really aren't.

    This post is just off.

    1. African agriculture was never labor intensive compared to Europe or Asia. In Africa most of the harvesting was done by women.

    2. African rivers are navigable enough. Sure the falls of some rivers are real barriers but even in the navigable rivers you don’t see the rivers used much for trade except for the Nile.

    3. The European labor shortage had already corrected itself by the time of colonization. The reality is that life for many Europeans was already decent enough to try their luck in untamed hostile lands. The French, long the most populous people in Western Europe, never migrated in large numbers.

    You should watch the latest episode of Skip Gates Africa civilizations series. During colonialism many Africans owned sophisticated businesses. He mentioned one family that ran a palm oil trading business that had extensive dealings with London.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nigerian Nationalist
    Didn't notice this??? "Now this is still a rough theory"

    But addressing your claims.

    1. First off, this sentence isn't logically coherent, what does harvesting being done by women have to do with the intensiveness of the labour used for agriculture??? My point in that sentence was that due to the general lack of ploughs and animal labour across Sub-saharan Africa, more human labour was used. Sub-As would have laboured more over smaller pieces of land than their continental counterparts in Asia and Europe. That was likely one of the reasons which encouraged, the pricing of labour over land, leading to more children and the institution of slavery.

    2. "African rivers are navigable enough." No, they aren't. They are mostly plagued by seasonal fluctuations and cataracts. navigable enough compared to the Mississippi systems? or the yellow river?? Just a little Google-fu throws up the following on the theme.

    http://slideplayer.com/slide/5762935/

    http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_are_most_rivers_of_Africa_not_navigable?#slide=1

    3. "The European labor shortage had already corrected itself by the time of colonization.": I agree, which is why you clearly see me mentioning colonialism as distinct from the Trans-Atlantic trade. Using the 1884-1885 Berlin conference as the starting point for colonialism, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade on the other hand started in 1485 (the first slaves went to Portuguese Atlantic islands, before the Americas kicked it into high gear).

    Also, it wasn't just the European slave trade that led to the trans-atlantic boom, but also as I mention, the American labour shortage.

    "The Americas are decimated by European diseases"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. backup says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Did the Nile get diverted to the Red Sea at one point?

    Rivers don't always follow the same path. For example, the Los Angeles River flowed west to Marina Del Rey until 1825 when it switched to flowing south to what's now the L.A. Harbor.

    The Nile has flowed that way for millions of years, dating back to a time that the Mediterranean was not connected to the Altlantic and was an almost dry salt lake with a surface substantially below sea level, not unlike a gigantic version of the Dead Sea. Underneath the current Nile is a huge valley that was carved out discharging into this lake, sometimes called the Eonile. When the Mediterranean got reconnected to the Atlantic this valley eventually filled up with sediment.

    The Rhone has a somewhat similar history.

    https://www.utdallas.edu/geosciences/remsens/Nile/geology.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @anonguy

    I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage
     
    It is an eye-opener reading about that institution, one that seems to have faded from memory. Some of the places colonized by Europeans have some very legitimate gripes....

    In WWI the Brits used African porters when they chased von Lettow-Vorbeck’s forces (who also used them) all round East Africa without ever apprehending them. Porters suffered huge casualties from disease (and the columns took food where they could, causing starvation).

    90% of the British casualties were among their porters.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck#East_African_war_and_the_population

    https://www.gov.uk/government/world-location-news/when-two-bulls-clash-the-grass-suffers-world-war-1-in-east-africa

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Kyle a says:
    @donut
    Jesus Christ on a cross if you can't be bothered to read a history book then at least use google .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs

    Jesus Christ…..that the first I’ve heard that fellas name used around here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Hodag says:
    @Ed
    I think this is one of history's great mysteries, what drove the first people to cross the Sahara to do so? Even with the camel you have to know something is on the other side to make it worth your while.

    Even today African migrants die by the hundreds if not thousands crossing the desert every year.

    I think the salt trade made folks go into the Sahara.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azalai

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. QueenAma says:
    @attilathehen
    This is the reason for Egypt's collapse - miscegenation with blacks. The original Egyptians were Caucasians. Then when the Muslims conquered Egypt, they started importing blacks in huge numbers and out to Northwestern Africa (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco). This combined with Islamic concubinage and polygamy destroyed the North Africans. Today average North African IQ is 84. The same thing happened in India. The original Indians were Aryans. They then mixed with Asians and destroyed their culture. Average Indian IQ 83.

    The original Egyptians were not Caucasian. That’s ridiculous. Seriously, it’s 2017…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    It's scary, ain't it?
    , @syonredux

    The original Egyptians were not Caucasian. That’s ridiculous. Seriously, it’s 2017…
     
    Caucasoid/West Eurasian.

    Caucasian should be reserved for people from the Caucasus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. But what about the Nile, which runs from Equatorial Africa to the Mediterranean? Shouldn’t that have led to more gene flow?

    Maybe it was just as scary for a non-black to travel into an all black area back then as it is today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. dearieme says:
    @rw95
    Scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was created by the indigenous Dravidian peoples of India. The Vedic Civilization which succeeded it was a synthesis of the IVC Dravidian and Aryan invader cultures.

    “Scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was created by the indigenous Dravidian peoples of India.” Could be. What’s their evidence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @rw95
    The Harappan language of the IVC has similarities to Proto-Dravidian languages. There are multiple hypotheses, but at the moment this one seems to be the most popular.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappan_language
    , @SPMoore8
    In the first place, getting dibs on Indus Valley Civilization is a huge prize that has led to some big cat fights among competing groups. The scholarship is not settled, and probably never will be.

    I don't know what the genetic evidence is but that can also be variously determined.

    The linguistic evidence hinges on the existence of Brahui, which is a Dravidian language in Pakistan. From there, one then argues for a Dravidian interpretation of the scattered Indus Valley writings.

    There is considerable in-group competition in India, not only among Hindus and Muslims in the North (whence Pakistan in the first place), or among other religious sects (e.g., Sikhs) or castes, but also among IE Indians (Hindu, Gujarati, etc.) and Dravidian Indians (a dozen languages, mostly on the lower half of the peninsula.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. dearieme says:
    @Ed
    I think this is one of history's great mysteries, what drove the first people to cross the Sahara to do so? Even with the camel you have to know something is on the other side to make it worth your while.

    Even today African migrants die by the hundreds if not thousands crossing the desert every year.

    Sailing (or rowing) round the Horn of Africa would have taught Egyptians (and others) that south of the Sahara lay slaves and ivory.

    Although I’m deeply sceptical about the yarn that Phoenicians in the service of the Pharaoh circumnavigated Africa, I find it easy to believe in the tales of Carthaginian exploration down the west coast.

    Another likelihood is that North Africans traded with the Taureg (in the camel era) and wanted to cross the desert simply to cut out the middle man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Yak-15 says:
    @attilathehen
    If the Australoids are related to the Australian aborgines, sometimes they are considered black, some Asian. Again, big picture: mixing with blacks/Asians destroys IQ.

    Mixing with Asians destroys IQ which is why our Ivy Leagues are devoid of their influence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @ThreeCranes
    A great song and a great performance. Who knew Walken had it in him!!?? Supports what I've said before that it's not so much that white men can't jump or that they don't have rhythm, it's that their body sense is different than that of blacks. Personally, I can't watch the NBA without seeing thugs. I prefer the way white guys move.

    I often hum that song when inline skating. It puts a certain syncopated beat into the stroke. People on the trail smile as I pass by cause they can see I'm enjoying myself.

    Like the great David Byrne.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @syonredux
    Razib Khan has frequently discussed the origins of South Asians:

    To a great extent it recapitulates the results of the 2009 paper Reconstructing Indian Population History. What you see to the left is the “ANI-ASI cline.” Basically South Asians, from Pashtuns all the way to Paniyas fall along a spectrum of genetic distance from West Asian and European populations. A secondary element is that some groups, such as Bengalis and many Austro-Asiatic tribes, are shifted toward East Asians. An old hypothesis of the ethnogenesis of South Asian peoples is that they are a variegated mix of “Caucasoid” populations intrusive to the subcontinent, which was originally inhabited by an “Australoid" element. Though these terms are somewhat archaic, the general point seems to get at something visually clear: some South Asians look nearly Mediterranean in appearance, while others are hard to distinguish from Australian Aboriginals (at least superficially). And of course, most of us are somewhere in the middle.

    The insight of the Reich group was to use Andaman Islanders as a proxy for a primal indigenous population, and infer that the admixture alluded to above consisted of a very West Eurasian-like population, the Ancestral North Indians (ANI), and an indigenous group closer to East Eurasians, though very diverged, the Ancestral South Indians (ASI). Ergo, the ANI-ASI cline. Using the most closely related population to infer the “ghost population,” they were able to infer admixture proportions even though no “pure” ASI group was available as a reference against which they could judge. Clever strategies like this are important, because the reference populations you use to adduce admixture events (or lack thereof) strongly impact the nature of your results. Using simple PCA or model-based clustering, as with ADMIXTURE, one would fix South Indian Dalits and tribal populations as the “purest” aboriginal people. ~100% “Australoid.” And other groups could be modeled as a “Caucasoid/Australoid” mix. But this model was not satisfactory because even low caste South Indian groups were more shifted toward West Eurasians than you’d expect.

     

    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/south-asians-are-not-descended-from-four-populations/

    Thanks for posting that. Razib’s GNXP really highlighted nuance and complexity inherent in these questions of population admixtures, and a lot of that knowledge aired in these parts thanks to Razib, is in danger of being lost. No point in dumbing ourselves down after learning what we have learned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Yak-15 says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    Personal theory on the reason for the gap.

    1. Efficiency setbacks: The lack of the wheel and horse simply made ancient sub-Saharans labour more in the field. It reduced the scope of conquests and communications. Why there was an sudden jump with the introduction of the horse and camel. I'll do that thing now in with historians and make a sweeping claim. The Eurasian invention of the wheel is the primary reason for the technological gap enjoyed by that region.

    2. Geography: Poor soil and farmland aside, the real killer IMO was the lack of navigable rivers. I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage and compared to a wagon, camels and horses are still inefficient transport means.

    3. Terrible Luck: Now by all indications, civilizations in Sub-A have tended to hit the Malthusian trap pretty quickly. Think of Rome without the Mediterranean supplying it, taking us back to the wheel and navigable waterways. But Sub-A was and still is prone to population booms, thanks to a cluster of fertile soil in West Africa and Eastern Africa and the Congo area. Now due to a lack of private land tenure, wealth was often held in labour, i.e slaves. Why any cursory glance through Sub-A will see their ubiquity. Now as we know, intensive cultivation by private landowners as opposed to slave labour provides incentives which lead to greater production.

    But the luck really compounds with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Europe loses a chunk of its population to the black death, Asia and East and North Africa aren't spared either. The Americas are decimated by European diseases, so a growing global economy has a labour crisis. Sub-A, no doubt behind the Sahara has the "luck" to have been spared the ravages of the disease, thus it boasts a surplus population.

    Long short, the chaos of the slave trade regresses development, colonialism stagnates it. Be snide all you want about the post independence era, but these are the continents best growth numbers ever.

    Now this is still a rough theory, but it strikes me as more plausible than genetics, though I clearly have a personal stake in the issue.

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren't attractive, they really aren't.

    This is a well-constructed, plausible explanation. I still believe the overwhelming evidence I have seen/gathered points to a genetic explanation.

    But I will use your reasoning when talking to SWPLs because it makes it appear as though I did a lot of complex thinking to affirm their pious worldview.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @syonredux

    The pre-Aryan invasion Indians were Australoids and Dravidians, who are dark skinned Caucasoids.
     
    Australoids are not Caucasoids. They are typically placed in their own grouping, hence the familiar list: Caucasoid, Mongoloid (usually called East Asian these days), Amerind, Sub-Saharan African, etc.

    I believe that Australian Aborigines are called Melanesians ?? Caucasian , Negroid , Mongoloid , Melanesian . I have not seen amerind get a separate category before …

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I believe that Australian Aborigines are called Melanesians ??
     
    Not in my experience.

    Caucasian , Negroid , Mongoloid , Melanesian . I have not seen amerind get a separate category before …
     
    Depends on whether you are a lumper or a splitter. Splitters fold Amerinds into the East Asian/Mongoloid category; lumpers split them off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @el supremo
    The integration of Egypt into the broader slave trading system of the Islamic world is the most likely explanation.

    In the classical world, Egypt saw moderate movements of people from other Mediterranean regions (Jews, Greek mercenaries and merchants, Roman soldiers, etc settled there in notable numbers). But there was not a need to draw slaves from Subsaharan Africa - Egypt had enough local farmers and any urban slaves came from other regions of the broader Greco-Roman world.

    The Muslim conquest changed these patterns - by connecting Egypt to Muslim trading networks extending into Africa, and more importantly the Islamic requirement that only non-Muslims could be enslaved. The pagan subsaharan Africans so became a major source of slaves.

    The flow of military slaves to support the Mameluk dynasties from the Ukraine and Circassia also brought new populations into Egypt in the Islamic era, especially after 1200 or so.

    Another channel for slaves was via the Red Sea and Arabia and Zanzibar— but I suppose that channel only opened in A.D. sometime.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @ThreeCranes
    A great song and a great performance. Who knew Walken had it in him!!?? Supports what I've said before that it's not so much that white men can't jump or that they don't have rhythm, it's that their body sense is different than that of blacks. Personally, I can't watch the NBA without seeing thugs. I prefer the way white guys move.

    I often hum that song when inline skating. It puts a certain syncopated beat into the stroke. People on the trail smile as I pass by cause they can see I'm enjoying myself.

    And so who are you calling thug? Thug.
    Who are the thugs who went around the world stealing killing holding people in slave? Hadn’t been fot that you would still be in Europe with nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Truth says:
    @QueenAma
    The original Egyptians were not Caucasian. That's ridiculous. Seriously, it's 2017...

    It’s scary, ain’t it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    nubian in the woodpile?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. syonredux says:
    @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian."
    Yes. Their black skin is an illusion.

    “Australian aborigines aren’t considered black or Asian.”
    Yes. Their black skin is an illusion.

    I think that by “black’ he means Sub-Saharan African-Negroid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. syonredux says:
    @QueenAma
    The original Egyptians were not Caucasian. That's ridiculous. Seriously, it's 2017...

    The original Egyptians were not Caucasian. That’s ridiculous. Seriously, it’s 2017…

    Caucasoid/West Eurasian.

    Caucasian should be reserved for people from the Caucasus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Luke Lea says:
    @Luke Lea
    References to camels notwithstanding, there is a case to be made for the pre-Mosaic origins of the Patriarchal Narratives based on the unusual sociological realities at the end of the Bronze age, a period characterized demographic collapse and urban decay, which suggests that Palestine may have been a relatively sparsely settled region into which peaceful migration was a possibility that later disappeared. Here is George Roux's description in his book, Ancient Iraq:

    Before that time, i.e., before the introduction of the camel around 1200 B.C., which made long-distance travel possible, the nomads, who rode on asses and practiced sheep-rearing, were much more restricted in their movements than the Bedouins of today and could not wander far beyond the limits of the grassy steppe which extends between the Tigris and Euphrates and at the foot of the Zagros, the Taurus and the Lebanon. There they were in close and constant touch with the agricultural populations which bought their sheep and supplied them with grain, dates, tools, weapons, and other utilitarian objects and amenities. . . . In general the two groups met regularly in villages or in market-places outside the gates of the cities, and exchanged goods, together, no doubt, with a number of ideas. Then the nomads returned to the steppe, perhaps only a few miles away. Occasionally, individuals left the tribe as Lot did in Sodom to Find work in the towns as mercenaries, craftsmen, or merchants. Sometimes a family, a clan, or a whole tribe would acquire (or be granted) land and devote itself partly to agriculture, partly to sheep-breeding. Not infrequently the local governments exercised some control over the nomads, using them in particular as auxiliary troops whenever required.

    For how this all fits together (and where the Hebraic conception of God may have come from) you will have to go here: https://goo.gl/kO3Wzk

    “The end of the period is marked by the abandonment of the cities and a return to lifestyles based on farming villages and semi-nomadic herding, although specialised craft production continued and trade routes remained open.”

    This is when the Patriarchal Narratives would have been set, except that this refers to Palestine not at the end of the Bronze Age but circa 2000 BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. syonredux says:
    @anon
    I believe that Australian Aborigines are called Melanesians ?? Caucasian , Negroid , Mongoloid , Melanesian . I have not seen amerind get a separate category before ...

    I believe that Australian Aborigines are called Melanesians ??

    Not in my experience.

    Caucasian , Negroid , Mongoloid , Melanesian . I have not seen amerind get a separate category before …

    Depends on whether you are a lumper or a splitter. Splitters fold Amerinds into the East Asian/Mongoloid category; lumpers split them off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Steve,

    The Saharan barrier was a factor, but a more important one was the steady expansion of the slave trade from sub-Saharan Africa to Egypt and then to the Middle East in general.

    Initially, and even in later periods, this expansion was supply-driven and not demand-driven. It had its origin in a social contradiction due to a shift from hunting and gathering (done equally by men and women) to farming (done year-round primarily by women). This change greatly reduced the costs of polygyny for men and, in turn, led to a sharp rise in sexual competition by men for women.

    For young men in particular, the only way to get a woman was to raid a neighboring community. These raids produced a surplus of captives, particularly male captives, who were either killed or sold off as slaves. Slave trading networks gradually developed and eventually extended to Egypt and the Middle East.

    Today, farming peoples dominate the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Hunter-gatherers have been reduced to a few marginal areas. But this situation is relatively recent. Even in early historical times, most of sub-Saharan Africa was still inhabited by hunter-gatherer peoples, either Khoisans or Pygmies.

    There was thus a demographic replacement of one phenotype by another. The earlier phenotype was lighter-colored (yellow-brown), mostly monogamous (less than 10% incidence of polygyny), smaller and much less robust in body build. The new phenotype was darker-skinned, much more polygynous (30 to 50%), bigger and more robust.

    Farming seems to have begun in West Africa, probably around the headwaters of the Niger, and then spread eastward and southward until it covered almost all of sub-Saharan Africa. This spread was largely demographic, and “Black Africans” did not reach the Nile Valley and the southern borders of ancient Egypt until around 2000 BC. Even during the time of the ancient Greeks, East Africa and southern Africa was still inhabited by Khoisan peoples. These were the Leuco-Aethiopians (white Ethiopians) mentioned in ancient Greek sources.

    Thus, to summarize, the slave trade to the Middle East developed, at least during this early phase, through the steady demographic expansion of farming peoples south of the Sahara and, concurrently, the expansion of internecine war and a supply of male captives who had to be disposed of, one way or another. This expansion was not complete until after Roman times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Peter Frost
    Steve,

    The Saharan barrier was a factor, but a more important one was the steady expansion of the slave trade from sub-Saharan Africa to Egypt and then to the Middle East in general.

    Initially, and even in later periods, this expansion was supply-driven and not demand-driven. It had its origin in a social contradiction due to a shift from hunting and gathering (done equally by men and women) to farming (done year-round primarily by women). This change greatly reduced the costs of polygyny for men and, in turn, led to a sharp rise in sexual competition by men for women.

    For young men in particular, the only way to get a woman was to raid a neighboring community. These raids produced a surplus of captives, particularly male captives, who were either killed or sold off as slaves. Slave trading networks gradually developed and eventually extended to Egypt and the Middle East.

    Today, farming peoples dominate the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Hunter-gatherers have been reduced to a few marginal areas. But this situation is relatively recent. Even in early historical times, most of sub-Saharan Africa was still inhabited by hunter-gatherer peoples, either Khoisans or Pygmies.

    There was thus a demographic replacement of one phenotype by another. The earlier phenotype was lighter-colored (yellow-brown), mostly monogamous (less than 10% incidence of polygyny), smaller and much less robust in body build. The new phenotype was darker-skinned, much more polygynous (30 to 50%), bigger and more robust.

    Farming seems to have begun in West Africa, probably around the headwaters of the Niger, and then spread eastward and southward until it covered almost all of sub-Saharan Africa. This spread was largely demographic, and "Black Africans" did not reach the Nile Valley and the southern borders of ancient Egypt until around 2000 BC. Even during the time of the ancient Greeks, East Africa and southern Africa was still inhabited by Khoisan peoples. These were the Leuco-Aethiopians (white Ethiopians) mentioned in ancient Greek sources.

    Thus, to summarize, the slave trade to the Middle East developed, at least during this early phase, through the steady demographic expansion of farming peoples south of the Sahara and, concurrently, the expansion of internecine war and a supply of male captives who had to be disposed of, one way or another. This expansion was not complete until after Roman times.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Svigor says:

    And so who are you calling thug? Thug.
    Who are the thugs who went around the world stealing killing holding people in slave? Hadn’t been fot that you would still be in Europe with nothing.

    Dunno. I suspect you are referring to blacks, since people like you are only aware of or care about black slaves, and blacks is who enslaved them. But they didn’t go around the world to do it; they enslaved their neighbors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. @anonguy

    I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage
     
    It is an eye-opener reading about that institution, one that seems to have faded from memory. Some of the places colonized by Europeans have some very legitimate gripes....

    To deliver one kilogram of rice to the interior it could take 50 kilograms of rice at the coast—most of it being consumed en route to feed all the porters needed to carry it inland. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Corps

    So the evil Brits, cackling evilly, as is our wont, said “stuff this for a game of soldiers, we need a proper railway like back ‘ome. You lot can sling yer ‘ook. Garn, clear off, and put yer feet up”.
    Which annoyed the locals even more.

    http://www.monitor.co.ug/SpecialReports/ugandaat50/-/1370466/1394816/-/uicvf8z/-/index.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Romanian says: • Website
    @Flip
    I was in Cairo once and I definitely thought the Egyptians were a mixed Caucasoid/Negroid people. The Lebanese and Arabs were much lighter.

    This music video presents the regional variety. It really is huge. And the music is catchy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Catchy song but 2:57 is terrifying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Cheap labor is never cheap.

    Cheap labor => death of civilizations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Civilization is based on cheap labor - having a settled population that can be taxed. Pre-civilized hunters aren't cheap. They require large ranges of land to roam and they can't be controlled and taxed - they will kill you if you try or fight you to the death instead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Generally unremarked but obvious:

    Slavery–endlessly bitched about–actually brought blacks a *huge*–one of the greatest ever–demographic expansions, and one that was completely *unearned* by any sort of technological, military or civilizational accomplishment.

    If Europeans and Arabs had just had the foresight to say “no” to the siren song of cheap labor, we’d have had less suffering and blacks would have a much smaller demographic footprint and the world would be a better, smarter place.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. rw95 says:
    @dearieme
    "Scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was created by the indigenous Dravidian peoples of India." Could be. What's their evidence?

    The Harappan language of the IVC has similarities to Proto-Dravidian languages. There are multiple hypotheses, but at the moment this one seems to be the most popular.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappan_language

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. AndrewR says:
    @Romanian
    This music video presents the regional variety. It really is huge. And the music is catchy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBvVTNRp4Q

    Catchy song but 2:57 is terrifying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Coming soon to a Walmart near you!
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Catchy song but 2:57 is terrifying.
     
    If you mean the guy with the red flag, the mulatador if you will, he looks like John Waters in blackface.

    Now Divine in blackface– that would be terrifying.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. AndrewR says:
    @Anonymous
    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock:

    http://marchofthetitans.com/2013/03/05/nordic-desert-empire-ancient-egypt/

    We wuz viking pharoahz!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. SPMoore8 says:
    @dearieme
    "Scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was created by the indigenous Dravidian peoples of India." Could be. What's their evidence?

    In the first place, getting dibs on Indus Valley Civilization is a huge prize that has led to some big cat fights among competing groups. The scholarship is not settled, and probably never will be.

    I don’t know what the genetic evidence is but that can also be variously determined.

    The linguistic evidence hinges on the existence of Brahui, which is a Dravidian language in Pakistan. From there, one then argues for a Dravidian interpretation of the scattered Indus Valley writings.

    There is considerable in-group competition in India, not only among Hindus and Muslims in the North (whence Pakistan in the first place), or among other religious sects (e.g., Sikhs) or castes, but also among IE Indians (Hindu, Gujarati, etc.) and Dravidian Indians (a dozen languages, mostly on the lower half of the peninsula.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AnotherDad
    Cheap labor is never cheap.

    Cheap labor => death of civilizations.

    Civilization is based on cheap labor – having a settled population that can be taxed. Pre-civilized hunters aren’t cheap. They require large ranges of land to roam and they can’t be controlled and taxed – they will kill you if you try or fight you to the death instead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Civilization is based on cheap labor – having a settled population that can be taxed.
     
    Agree on settled, ergo taxable. Disagree on "cheap". "Productive" is what the labor has to be--productive enought to tax.

    The US was alway a high wage outpost and put up a pretty good civilization but most metrics. Productive people. Germany is a high wage joint, pretty civilized, carries a fair amount of the Euro tax burden.

    It's precisely various "cheap labor" schemes--slavery, "guest workers", illegal aliens, mass low skill immigration--plus "refugee" silliness that causes "challenges" and will be the death of these civilizations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. “My vague impression is that the White Nile’s swamps in southern Sudan are extremely difficult. I can remember looking at a world train schedule handbook in 1980 and, south of Khartoum, it took forever to get up the Nile on a steamer due to aquatic vegetation.”

    In Alexander Korda’s classic 1939 film The Four Feathers, the British army, along with their cannons, regiments, etc. had to cross the Upper Nile by steamboats to retake Khartoum (which was lost under General Gordon around 1885). And it looked like the British would never get there in time to face off vs. the Fuzzy Wuzzies, and the Emir (Muslims). Fortunately they did. Maybe they should’ve taken the train, but at least they reached Khartoum in time.

    Was a good story as far as it went. Sir Ralph Richardson and C. Aubrey Smith gave their usual amazing performances. Miklos Rozsa’s score holds up rather well.

    Wonder if anyone still remembers C. Aubrey Smith anymore?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Maybe they should’ve taken the train, but at least they reached Khartoum in time.
     
    Actually, while Kitcherner had steamboats as well, he did build a railroad across the desert to support the campaign. Actually cutting through open desert bypassing the big bend in the Nile and 2nd, 3rd and 4th cataracts.

    Kitchners campaign was not a lightweight "sail up the river and fight" deal, it was a staged, well supported, heavyweight operation. (Chruchill's "The River War" is my source here.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Anonymous
    Civilization is based on cheap labor - having a settled population that can be taxed. Pre-civilized hunters aren't cheap. They require large ranges of land to roam and they can't be controlled and taxed - they will kill you if you try or fight you to the death instead.

    Civilization is based on cheap labor – having a settled population that can be taxed.

    Agree on settled, ergo taxable. Disagree on “cheap”. “Productive” is what the labor has to be–productive enought to tax.

    The US was alway a high wage outpost and put up a pretty good civilization but most metrics. Productive people. Germany is a high wage joint, pretty civilized, carries a fair amount of the Euro tax burden.

    It’s precisely various “cheap labor” schemes–slavery, “guest workers”, illegal aliens, mass low skill immigration–plus “refugee” silliness that causes “challenges” and will be the death of these civilizations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    America was a "high wage outpost" because it wasn't completely civilized and had a a significant frontier for most of its history. Bismark introduced social welfare and pro-labor legislation because America was increasingly attracting labor fleeing the German plantation. Germany's "high wages" today conceal the fact ordinary German workers subsidize a cheaper Euro via financial repression.

    Civilization is fundamentally based on shifting taxes off of wealth and onto cheaper labor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "My vague impression is that the White Nile’s swamps in southern Sudan are extremely difficult. I can remember looking at a world train schedule handbook in 1980 and, south of Khartoum, it took forever to get up the Nile on a steamer due to aquatic vegetation."

    In Alexander Korda's classic 1939 film The Four Feathers, the British army, along with their cannons, regiments, etc. had to cross the Upper Nile by steamboats to retake Khartoum (which was lost under General Gordon around 1885). And it looked like the British would never get there in time to face off vs. the Fuzzy Wuzzies, and the Emir (Muslims). Fortunately they did. Maybe they should've taken the train, but at least they reached Khartoum in time.

    Was a good story as far as it went. Sir Ralph Richardson and C. Aubrey Smith gave their usual amazing performances. Miklos Rozsa's score holds up rather well.

    Wonder if anyone still remembers C. Aubrey Smith anymore?

    Maybe they should’ve taken the train, but at least they reached Khartoum in time.

    Actually, while Kitcherner had steamboats as well, he did build a railroad across the desert to support the campaign. Actually cutting through open desert bypassing the big bend in the Nile and 2nd, 3rd and 4th cataracts.

    Kitchners campaign was not a lightweight “sail up the river and fight” deal, it was a staged, well supported, heavyweight operation. (Chruchill’s “The River War” is my source here.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Romanian says: • Website
    @AndrewR
    Catchy song but 2:57 is terrifying.

    Coming soon to a Walmart near you!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @AnotherDad

    Civilization is based on cheap labor – having a settled population that can be taxed.
     
    Agree on settled, ergo taxable. Disagree on "cheap". "Productive" is what the labor has to be--productive enought to tax.

    The US was alway a high wage outpost and put up a pretty good civilization but most metrics. Productive people. Germany is a high wage joint, pretty civilized, carries a fair amount of the Euro tax burden.

    It's precisely various "cheap labor" schemes--slavery, "guest workers", illegal aliens, mass low skill immigration--plus "refugee" silliness that causes "challenges" and will be the death of these civilizations.

    America was a “high wage outpost” because it wasn’t completely civilized and had a a significant frontier for most of its history. Bismark introduced social welfare and pro-labor legislation because America was increasingly attracting labor fleeing the German plantation. Germany’s “high wages” today conceal the fact ordinary German workers subsidize a cheaper Euro via financial repression.

    Civilization is fundamentally based on shifting taxes off of wealth and onto cheaper labor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Salger says:
    @Nigerian Nationalist
    Personal theory on the reason for the gap.

    1. Efficiency setbacks: The lack of the wheel and horse simply made ancient sub-Saharans labour more in the field. It reduced the scope of conquests and communications. Why there was an sudden jump with the introduction of the horse and camel. I'll do that thing now in with historians and make a sweeping claim. The Eurasian invention of the wheel is the primary reason for the technological gap enjoyed by that region.

    2. Geography: Poor soil and farmland aside, the real killer IMO was the lack of navigable rivers. I shudder to imagine the economic waste that was due human porterage and compared to a wagon, camels and horses are still inefficient transport means.

    3. Terrible Luck: Now by all indications, civilizations in Sub-A have tended to hit the Malthusian trap pretty quickly. Think of Rome without the Mediterranean supplying it, taking us back to the wheel and navigable waterways. But Sub-A was and still is prone to population booms, thanks to a cluster of fertile soil in West Africa and Eastern Africa and the Congo area. Now due to a lack of private land tenure, wealth was often held in labour, i.e slaves. Why any cursory glance through Sub-A will see their ubiquity. Now as we know, intensive cultivation by private landowners as opposed to slave labour provides incentives which lead to greater production.

    But the luck really compounds with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Europe loses a chunk of its population to the black death, Asia and East and North Africa aren't spared either. The Americas are decimated by European diseases, so a growing global economy has a labour crisis. Sub-A, no doubt behind the Sahara has the "luck" to have been spared the ravages of the disease, thus it boasts a surplus population.

    Long short, the chaos of the slave trade regresses development, colonialism stagnates it. Be snide all you want about the post independence era, but these are the continents best growth numbers ever.

    Now this is still a rough theory, but it strikes me as more plausible than genetics, though I clearly have a personal stake in the issue.

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren't attractive, they really aren't.

    Seriously though, the miscegenation fears are getting old, the vast majority of your women really aren’t attractive, they really aren’t.

    The hordes of Blacks and other muds performing sex crimes on White females while the other way around doesn’t happen points otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Ed
    This post is just off.

    1. African agriculture was never labor intensive compared to Europe or Asia. In Africa most of the harvesting was done by women.

    2. African rivers are navigable enough. Sure the falls of some rivers are real barriers but even in the navigable rivers you don't see the rivers used much for trade except for the Nile.

    3. The European labor shortage had already corrected itself by the time of colonization. The reality is that life for many Europeans was already decent enough to try their luck in untamed hostile lands. The French, long the most populous people in Western Europe, never migrated in large numbers.

    You should watch the latest episode of Skip Gates Africa civilizations series. During colonialism many Africans owned sophisticated businesses. He mentioned one family that ran a palm oil trading business that had extensive dealings with London.

    Didn’t notice this??? “Now this is still a rough theory”

    But addressing your claims.

    1. First off, this sentence isn’t logically coherent, what does harvesting being done by women have to do with the intensiveness of the labour used for agriculture??? My point in that sentence was that due to the general lack of ploughs and animal labour across Sub-saharan Africa, more human labour was used. Sub-As would have laboured more over smaller pieces of land than their continental counterparts in Asia and Europe. That was likely one of the reasons which encouraged, the pricing of labour over land, leading to more children and the institution of slavery.

    2. “African rivers are navigable enough.” No, they aren’t. They are mostly plagued by seasonal fluctuations and cataracts. navigable enough compared to the Mississippi systems? or the yellow river?? Just a little Google-fu throws up the following on the theme.

    http://slideplayer.com/slide/5762935/

    http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_are_most_rivers_of_Africa_not_navigable?#slide=1

    3. “The European labor shortage had already corrected itself by the time of colonization.”: I agree, which is why you clearly see me mentioning colonialism as distinct from the Trans-Atlantic trade. Using the 1884-1885 Berlin conference as the starting point for colonialism, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade on the other hand started in 1485 (the first slaves went to Portuguese Atlantic islands, before the Americas kicked it into high gear).

    Also, it wasn’t just the European slave trade that led to the trans-atlantic boom, but also as I mention, the American labour shortage.

    The Americas are decimated by European diseases”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Ari says:
    @Anonymous
    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock:

    http://marchofthetitans.com/2013/03/05/nordic-desert-empire-ancient-egypt/

    Wæ wüz køngs thæn?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @AndrewR
    Catchy song but 2:57 is terrifying.

    Catchy song but 2:57 is terrifying.

    If you mean the guy with the red flag, the mulatador if you will, he looks like John Waters in blackface.

    Now Divine in blackface– that would be terrifying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Anonymous
    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock:

    http://marchofthetitans.com/2013/03/05/nordic-desert-empire-ancient-egypt/

    The ancient Egyptians were mainly of Nordic stock

    Perhaps in the sense Julia Child used the term:

    http://www.food.com/amp/recipe/master-recipe-for-basic-stock-julia-child-446950

    (NB: Either there’s a typo in that recipe, or it was transcribed by Whiskey– “…scum wills tart to rise…”)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation