The Mysterious Origins of Hybrid Man

NOT OUT OF AFRICA

The Many Gardens of Eden

The fads have risen and fallen around me.

CARLETON COON, ADVENTURES AND DISCOVERIES

THE LONGEST HIKE

We are all Africans.

DOUGLAS PALMER, ORIGINS

Hotfooting to Africa since Louis Leakey’s day, the bone people have evolved a new urban legend: we are all ultimately Africans. This out-of-Africa genesis, OOA for short, conceived for all the wrong reasons and built on a pyramid of supposition, is, as we speak, circling the drain.

Let us begin by finding out what this improbable but fashionable and politically motivated theory (already elevated to fact, if only by force of repetition) tells us about our forebears and their wanderlust: It is in two parts, actually. Part one: Early man, Homo erectus, departed Africa, oh, about 1.6 mya. But wait, the race of H. erectus was previously thought to be no more than 500 kyr,^*132 Arthur Keith, in 1929, having shelved Pithecanthropus no earlier than 220 kya! Now he is eight times older! How did that happen?

Whenever it was, or imagined to be, the early hominids known as H. erectus (Druks) allegedly emigrated en masse from Africa, all the way to China and Indonesia—where they were eventually replaced or died out, becoming an irrelevant dead end as far as evolution is concerned (with the possible exception of the European ones, who may have evolved into Neanderthals).

The problems begin at once. Put on your thinking cap; this is tough. For starters: How did H. erectus manage to evolve to mods in Africa, while Asian H. erectus did nothing of the sort, continuing on largely unchanged? I wonder why they didn’t evolve into mods in Asia as well.

The trouble—the theoretical strain of it—only deepens with Asian H. erectus being more primitive in some respects than African ones. Why are some Javanese H. erectus older than African ones? Richard Leakey’s African Skull 3733 (at 900 cc), or OH 9 (at 1,050 cc), should have the same size or smaller brain than the (younger) H. erectus of Java, whose size is 850 cc and who had a much more apelike forehead than Africa’s 3733. (Peking Man’s forehead is also more primitive than Africa’s 3733). Being the ancestor, 3733 should be the more primitive, but appears actually to be more advanced, lacking Asian H. erectus’s long and lowslung cranial structure, thick skull bones, and robust face. African H. erectus is the more progressive.

Explanation? Incredibly, the African version is now certified the more primitive, on the bogus plea that it is generalized, as opposed to specialized, even though the African skulls are higher domed and thinner walled than their East Asian counterparts! They are also less massive in face and brow, which the OOA wizards make bold to call “more primitive or less specialized.”1 Here we catch Afrocentrists daringly, counterintuitively, calling H. erectus’s massive brow a more advanced feature because specialized—despite this “advance” being away from the modern human form! Confusion and humbug! A shameless feint of jargon, intellectual sleight of hand.

Farther down the rabbit hole, anthropologists cannot agree whether African and Asian H. erectus are even of the same lineage; some claim they are entirely different groups, with different skull dimensions. Tattersall and Schwartz see H. erectus of Africa and Java as completely different types. In fact, the morphological distinctness of Asian H. erectus led to doubts about the existence of any H. erectus from African sites! As a solution to this little problem, they renamed the African one Homo ergaster. But H. ergaster still has a larger brain—up to 900 cc—than his Javanese “descendant.” Indeed, Kenya’s Turkana Boy (though primitive in head) was tall, well-proportioned, and slender, hardly a forerunner of rugged squat bulky Java or Peking Man.

And how can you make H. erectus an African émigré when his Javanese “descendant” is actually older?2 Let’s see: East African H. erectus is dated 1 myr 3 while Java’s H. erectus is up to almost 2 myr (1.9 myr). Shouldn’t it be just the other way around? Chinese H. erectus from Sichuan Province were also dated 1.9 myr (at Longgupo Cave), while Java’s Modjokerto Man, and even Georgia’s Dmanisi Man, are dated 1.8 myr. Well then, the tailor-made solution is that H. erectus left Africa “earlier than we thought.” Just like that—a major migration and new time line is created. Theory dictates.

Yet this is only the beginning of difficulties—and ad hoc solutions. This pipeline from Africa to everywhere else (monogenesis) just doesn’t wash, but when conflicting evidence turns up, theory is salvaged with pseudoexplanations, like “specialization” or entirely specious waves of migration.

AFRICAN EXODUS PART TWO

For the second phase of OOA, it is taught that some time between 130 and 30 kya (a good window or “scatter” for later deniability), African H. sapiens went forth and supplanted all previous hominids in the world. According to this replacement model, outmoded species were replaced by new, freshly adapted ones. But H. sapiens coexisted in Java with H. erectus, who were therefore not replaced by their “betters.” Java’s H. erectus, in theory, is supposed to have been extirpated, without contributing in any way to the modern genome.

But given a ballpark figure of 100 kya for this second exodus, how do you explain the appearance of AMH features in European specimens much earlier than that? Why do European hominids start showing mod traits long before the world’s supposedly only mods left Africa? Examples include fossil men from Petralona, Vertesszollos, Atapuerca, Terra Amata, Arago, and Swanscombe—all said to be around 300 kyr, and all showing at least some AMH traits. Dated ca 400 kya, the various Homo heidelbergensis specimens in Europe (a pre-Neanderthal type) also have H. sapiens traits. But that’s way too soon (for the 100 kyr part two exodus), and it also places mods before Neanderthals in Europe.

When faced with hominids like Heidelberg Man who look rather like their contemporaries in Africa, it again signals “a fresh wave of African immigrants”4 who, theory claims, evolved into Neanderthals in Europe, but whose sisters and brothers evolved into H. sapiens in Africa! How does that grab you?

According to OOA, nothing hinting of mod got to Europe any earlier than, say, 50 kya. So what do we make of those Atapuerca bones in Spain, dated 1.2 myr? These people had fairly large braincases at 1,390 cc and jawbones with a real chin. Apparently, there was some sort of AMH in Europe much earlier than OOA theory allows. To save theory, hominids, they now said, after leaving Africa, came here to Europe and evolved into the newly christened Homo antecessor, much earlier than we thought.

If all this is difficult for you, it is difficult for me, too. Let’s back up a moment and try to get a grip on exodus, part two. It finds us in Africa (at least one and a half million years after H. erectus’s departure), waving good-bye to the second set of émigrés: a host of black AMHs. The OOA theory, inaugurated in 1987, dispatches this Eve out of Africa, naming her the single mother of all! Using mtDNA to determine the molecular clock of time, the resulting genetic tree tracks us all back to this common ancestress: mitochondrial Eve. Comparing ages of lineages from different regions, analysts came up with a time line for the outward bound migrations of this black Eve, or Mother Superior, as some have dubbed our mutual ancestor.

While the Eve theory assumes that all changes in her mtDNA (as observed in her living offspring, today’s races) were the result of steady mutations over time, these “changes” could just as reasonably be due to nothing more complicated than race mixings. Geneticist Alan Templeton maintains that precisely such mixing could have scrambled the DNA sequences, to the extent that “a date for Eve can never be settled by mtDNA.”^*133 Others say the computer program that worked out this family tree was biased by the order in which the data were entered. Enter it a different way, and it does not give an African origin at all. Henry Gee, from the editorial staff of Nature, described the results of the mtDNA study as “garbage.” Even Mark Stoneking, who did the original mtDNA research in 1987, acknowledged that African Eve has been invalidated.

And there’s this: Some estimates put the grand exodus OOA (part two) at 160,000 years ago; though it may have been only 133,000 years ago.5 Others say 200,000 years ago, and yet others arrive at an age “much greater than 200,000 years,” that is, three million years ago!6 Read a different book or article, and that changes to 50,000 years ago 7—hardly enough time for all the different races of the world to take shape from the Negroid original.

One might also ask: If a troop of H. sapiens ventured OOA say, 100 kya, why is there no sign of their culture (artifacts normally associated with the modern type: art, ornament, burials, storage pits, quarries, tools, trade, long-term occupancy) for another 50,000 years? Why the gap? This is unexplained. Why are Mousterian (Neanderthal) tools found at some sites inhabited by men of the modern type? These are fossils with the modern physique, but without modern behavior—for tens of thousands of years. “They tell you that modern man has been in existence for 200 kyr. Holy cow, what do they think these fully structured humans were doing for the past 190 kyrs?”8 South Africa’s Boskop Man, for instance, shows no culture to go along with his mod features and huge brain (1,830 cc), only rudely worked Mousterian tools. The same holds for South Africa’s Klasies site (as well as Israel’s Mt. Carmel, Krapina, Crimea, Borneo, and Malaysia).

In 1970, before African genesis came into fashion, Neanderthaltype tools in Africa were dated with no difficulty to 25 kya. But that figure changed to 200 kya—to better suit the newly minted OOA theory. Well, the dates are no more consistent than the theory itself, which (part two) goes on to claim that after these hardy AMHs left Africa, and trickled out to populate the entire world, becoming (or mutating into) the South American Indians, Australians, Pacific Islanders, and everyone else. All from the African hub! Thus was the whole world settled by these great migrations. Or so it is taught.

The New Guinea population, to take one example, presumably became established in this manner some sixty thousand years ago—overlooking the geographic fact that Sundaland (insular Southeast Asia) and Sahul (New Guinea and Australia region) are separated by deep ocean channels swept by strong and swift north to south currents. How exactly did these folks (with not much culture or technology) get out of Asia and Sundaland across to Sahul? Boats? Island-hopping across Indonesia to Australia? I doubt it.

If they arrived by water, why are there no traces of such boats or rafts on the northern Australian coast? Proponents say, disingenuously, we simply do not know their ship-building abilities; but no decent watercraft in the region can be dated that long ago. Neither do today’s Aborigines’ boats seem likely candidates for crossing to Australia or Oceania from any part of Southeast Asia. Did Micronesia’s little Palauans cross 370 miles of shark-infested deep ocean just to get to rocky Palau?

Today phylo-geographists claim they can track and identify long-distance migrations that bands of humans made in prehistoric times. Much of this science, however, is set up in the first place to prove a point—evolution—and its latest Garden of Eden: Africa. Thus does current genetic mapping “prove” African origins, the family tree beginning with the San (Bushman) and branching out.

The Bushmen are thought to have the oldest mtDNA in the world. Hence African Eve—everyone’s ultimate mother. I believe, however, that the great age of Bushman DNA can be explained otherwise: They are the last surviving people in Africa who lived before the flood, relics of a separate race, as Coon suggested, having come from a different pre–H. sapiens stock, the true aborigines of Africa’s grasslands. (The younger age of all other African DNA devolves on postflood hybrids, which I go into later in this chapter.)

Since the late 1980s population genetics has been mapping the earliest migrations undertaken by modern humans OOA, following “the inexorable progression of colonizations” from continent to continent. This concept of replacing the natives or colonizing the world is compatible, not with protohistory, but with the rule of expansionism and imperialism, which began only in recent time—the Holocene. “The oldest tribes are invariably peaceful. . . . The seed of conquest is not in them. Mankind’s desire to make himself master of [others] is a comparatively late development in the world.”9 Though OOA ostensibly credits the black man with conquering the world, all this is really the white man’s burden in disguise.

BORN TO ROAM

Proto-Negroids have never ventured beyond the tropic lands.

ROLAND DIXON, THE RACIAL HISTORY OF MAN

Why would they leave dear Africa, anyway? The reasons given are food shortages, “skirmishes with other groups,”10 scarcity of drinking water—pure guesswork, bald conjecture. Why would H. erectus (part one) abandon his warm home? Hypotheses include drying or cooling climate, which forced them out to Western Asia. Failing that, this man was simply “born to roam.”11 How lyrical: “The spread of Homo erectus into the northern continents was an inevitable consequence of evolutionary momentum. There was already kindled in the human mind a spirit of adventure, a real curiosity about the world around them,”12 this fancied wanderlust totally contradicting the reverse impulse, known as nostophylia, meaning, the deep-seated reluctance to abandon one’s ancestral home, which the Filipinos call bungungot, spiritual homesickness.

A spot of common sense: Hominids at the low level of Druk or H. erectus were more the stay-at-home sort than globe-trotting adventurers. How can we credit these brutish types, hardly advanced beyond their ground-burrowing, worm-eating ways, with such challenging migrations? How did

H. erectus cross the forbidding desert barriers of the Middle East? The awesome rivers of Asia? The major mountain barriers east out of the Levant? If they went north and east out of Africa, why are their typical hand axes not found in Southeast Asia or the Caucasus or China? Neither can anyone figure out how those early humans reached Spain and Italy (Ceprano) “without leaving traces in Turkey, Greece, or other points en route.”13

Which route did they take out of Africa?: “Your guess is as good as mine,” says expert Brian Fagan, who nonetheless declares that H. erectus OOA “possessed all the awesome mental abilities of modern humanity.”14 I must say, when it is useful to have H. erectus appear as a link to the anthropoid apes, he is drawn in books and journals with a “brutal muzzle,” primitive canines, small brain, and curved back—“a large-brained ape that looked rather like a man.”15 In the nineteenth century Pithecanthropus allalus was regarded as sufficiently distinct from humans to warrant an altogether separate genus. Marcellin Boule, in 1923, didn’t even think Java Man (H. erectus) was prehuman—just an anthropoid ape, a giant gibbon!

Figure 11.1. Gabriel Max’s painting of Pithecanthropus allalus, a missing link, reproduced in Ernst Haeckel’s Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte.

It is indeed hard to comprehend Homo erectus’s means of transport . . . how a creature of his limited intelligence could have crossed the waters separating Java, Australia, and Africa.

JEFFREY GOODMAN, THE GENESIS MYSTERY

The ground people traveled not.

OAHSPE, THE LORDS’ SECOND BOOK 3:3

Only consider Darwin’s sensible thoughts on the matter, stated in The Descent of Man: “The wilder races of man are apt to suffer much in health when subjected to changed conditions. . . . Take them away from their . . . homes, and they are almost certain to die. . . . Man in his wild condition . . . is susceptible when removed from their [sic] native country.”

Instead of giving up OOA in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, theorists prop up hypothetical migrations at every turn:

Since Australians and New Guineans are so different genetically, it must be a separate migration that got them to their respective lands.
The DNA of Denisova or X Woman, being different from mods and Neanderthals, calls for a separate migration (500 kya), Pääbo suggesting that her people migrated out of Africa at a different time than Neanderthals or mods. If not, Denisova alone could overturn the OOA theory.
Another study posits a different wave of early Africans who made the exodus and interbred with the H. erectus who had left Africa a million years earlier (so much for parts one and two).
With the discovery of Indonesia’s hobbit, “proponents now believe . . . the first human ancestors to leave Africa may have been far more anatomically primitive [than H. erectus]—and may have left far earlier—than previously thought. If they are right, the Flores [hobbit] remains rank among the most important paleoanthropological discoveries of all time. . . . If they are wrong, it will be worse than Piltdown,” referring to the 1912 hoaxers who combined modern human and orangutan fragments into one fraudulent fossil.16

Those little hobbits supposedly “evolved from a normal-size island-hopping H. erectus population that reached Flores around 840,000 years ago. . . . The ancestors of hobbits probably left . . . on foot about 2 million years ago, ultimately crossing treacherous ocean waters . . . With a brain just one-third the size of a typical Homo sapiens adult, the hobbits were managing some extraordinary things . . . crossing at least two water barriers to reach Flores from mainland Asia.” But how exactly did they cross the deep, seemingly impassable waters? One scientist speculates that “a giant tsunami . . . swept them out to sea. Survivors clinging to trees could have been washed ashore.”17 Yeah, right. Pure moonshine.

Before the Holocene (only 10 kya), as Jared Diamond wrote in The Third Chimpanzee, “unfettered travel was impossible.” Early people, he pointed out, “had no social framework for travel beyond immediately neighboring lands.” Indeed, other tribes would simply “kill any trespasser. . . . To venture out of one’s territory . . . was equivalent to suicide.” Human populations, Diamond concluded, are basically sedentary.

Colonizers of new regions are particularly liable to perish.

STEPHEN JONES, THE CAMBRIDGE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HUMAN EVOLUTION

What a sport it has become, moving the races of men (and the clock of time) around like pawns on a chessboard! How disconcerting, then, that the same scholars, conversely, suddenly become strict isolationists, adamantly denying much more plausible migrations, to America, for example, by prehistoric (Holocene) Chinese, Egyptians, Phoenicians, proto-Greeks—nations with excellent ships. “Men were on the move around the world much earlier than mainstream scholars would have us believe.”^*134 The Vedics of India, a maritime culture, navigated around Africa and across the Atlantic, mining the copper and tin in South America. The Phoenicians left many signs of their foray into Brazil for its mineral wealth. Worldwide legend is full of such traveling wise men in the Stone Age. “And man built ships and sailed over the ocean in all directions, around about the whole world”^†135 (the passage referring to a period around 40 kya).

POLYGENESIS AND THE RACE CARD

Subsapient man was not a traveler, and we needn’t take him out of Africa or anywhere else to populate the world. It is much less trouble-some and more realistic to take all the early races as indigenous to the lands in which we find their bones (polygenesis).

Carleton Coon, besides positing that the five races developed independently, also theorized that they developed at different times. It was this different times that got his approach rejected by the American Anthropological Association. Coon, writing in his memoir Adventures and Discoveries, describes how, in 1962, he became, in his own word, the “target” of a passel of do-gooders who accused him of racism when he worked out the relative date when each transition [to the modern form] took place; Coon had Mongoloids and Caucasoids arising around 250 kya, but Africans at a later date.

Coon and his Harvard mentor Hooton discovered that the earliest men of modern type were brachycephalic Caucasians (most early hominids, in contrast, leaned toward long headedness: dolichocephaly). Well, for some reason, their critics jumped to the conclusion that the first race to cross the sapiens threshold must therefore be the most advanced. The implication, Coon explained, is that whoever came first is thereby best; but this is a logical fallacy (Coon saw the timing in a different light, simply a matter of different environments).

Hooton had found the first mods to be a Europoid race, an understandable position considering the Ihins came before all subsequent mixes. The first AMH specimens, as we have seen many times, resemble the Europoid type—the Ihin. “The parent stock [of sapiens] must be regarded as proto-Caucasoids.”18 But consider this: Since Caucasians have the straight hair of the anthropoid apes and since skulls of anthropoids are brachycephalic, it is the dolichocephalic Africans who are morphologically furthest from the simian type. George Frederick Wright’s observations put to rest any attempted definition of blacks as relics of the evolutionary past:

The European has a small face and a high nose—all features farther removed from the probable animal ancestor of man. On the other hand, the European retains in the strongest degree the hairiness of the animal ancestor, while the specifically human development of the red lip is most marked in the negro. The proportions of the limbs of the negro are also more markedly distinct from the corresponding proportions in the higher apes than are those of the European.

GEORGE FREDERICK WRIGHT, ORIGIN AND ANTIQUITY OF MAN

Coon, it seems, was assailed by people who were plainly afraid of blowback in the form of “a certain snobbishness as to whose ancestors became sapiens first.” A moot point, really, seeing that Homo sapiens sapiens (the Ghans) arose “in all [e.a.] the divisions of the earth” out of the cross between Ihins and Ihuans.19 In fact, like the Batek Negritos say, the very first people were created from brown soil; next came beings from white soil (Ihin), therefore they (Batek) were created first. This is what we saw in chapter 2: Negritos were not only a universal race, but were the original occupants of most regions in the world. Coon went on to explain “When I wrote that our Caucasoid ancestors crossed [the sapiens threshold] earlier than the ancestors of some Africans. . . . I knew that I was in for trouble.” T. Dobzhansky, leading the charge, stated publicly that Coon’s parallel evolution (polygenesis, separate descents), “would require a mystical inner drive that propels evolution.” Which is nonsense, since parallel developments are seen everywhere in the record. “The multifaceted phenomenon of man,” Jeffrey Goodman noted in The Genesis Mystery, “started off in a number of geographic regions at once.” And, I might add, not by evolving, but simply by crossbreeding.

In reality, the Garden of Eden was worldwide.

SIR ARTHUR KEITH, THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN

To Robert Braidwood, it seemed “unlikely that only one little region saw the beginning of the [human] drama.”20

Apparently Coon’s opponents were worried that polygenism could be taken advantage of by racial propagandists.^*136 Yet I wonder why they were (and are) not so worried about what racists could do with their current reconstructions, like the Smithsonian’s and National Geographic’s highly publicized models of African hominids looking like a cross between gorilla and Negro. After all, those Miocene apes, “our closest primate relatives,” lived in Africa, and with Africa as the cradle, direct links must be found between apes and black Africans.

We are essentially elaborated African apes.

DONALD JOHANSON AND BLAKE EDGAR, FROM LUCY TO LANGUAGE

So I’d like to ask: What’s so politically correct about apes being the ancestors of African people? Why not deplore the racist H. F. Osborn instead of the humanist Coon? One-time president of the American Museum of Natural History, Osborn believed in the superiority of certain races; he was part of the eugenics movement and linked to the policies that gave rise to Hitlerism. Oh yes, there were close ties between American race scientists and those working in Nazi Germany.21 Darwin himself had culled (prejudicial) evidence to show that nonwhite races had “more apelike features.”22

But ever since Hitler, the subject of race has been closed down. Taboo. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, anthropology—running scared of accusations of racism—not only dropped the idea of race (notwithstanding euphemisms like ethnic groups or even clans), but abandoned the first-rate, unbeatable work of Dixon, Hooton, Coon, and even Weidenreich. It was all too emotional, irrational. And it comes down to threat management—not science.

And it set the stage for revisions, such as the untenable monogenism of an African Garden of Eden, conforming, not to the evidence at hand, but to the pressure of (ill-informed) public opinion and nervous ideas of political correctness. Although anthropology sincerely hoped to purge its doctrines of any hint of racial supremacy, scapegoating Coon (and polygenism) was a disgraceful nonsolution.

The firestorm over supposed racism in anthropology led to egregious manipulation of the record. To put out the fire, it became necessary, for example, to change the date of Africa’s Kabwe Man from 40 kyr to 125 kyr—as ammunition against Coon’s position that “Africans remained at a Homo erectus level . . . at a time when Homo sapiens had already appeared in Europe.” Kabwe Man was then “adjusted” to cross the H. sapiens threshold earlier on. But could his bones really have been so old, with no traces of fossilization? Kabwe (aka Broken Hill, Rhodesian Man) was a tall and strong man with the modern loaf-shaped cranium, modern also in limbs, neck, and dental arch; yet his tibia was not like living Africans, and he abounded in pre-Neanderthal (erectoid) traits in his massive brow, skull proportions (only 1,280 cc), and prognathism. His was a long face, large upper jaw, enormous palate, and extremely sloped forehead. Kabwe’s tools (Acheulian) were rudimentary, and finally he was a cannibal.

Was Kabwe, this cannibal, the ancestor of all modern men? Was he Africa’s phylogenetic link from H. erectus (or H. ergaster) to H. sapiens? Hardly. His Neanderthaloid skull was synchronous with similar types in Europe, such as France’s La Chapelle-aux-Saints skull, Greece’s Petralona, and Italy’s Olmo II. “The Broken Hill Man,” thought Marcellin Boule, “is much more like Homo neanderthalensis than any other race.” Although originally dated 40 kyr, that was revised to 125 to 300 to 500 kyr! But he was found with extant mammal bones, and “their appearance is very fresh.”23 In fact, Kabwe may be a mere 33 or 11 or even 6 kyr, “startlingly recent times,”24 for the bones are not mineralized and his implements hardly differ from those of the modern Bushman.

Franz Weidenreich in Apes, Giants, and Man (1946) correctly concluded that “human forms preceding . . . modern man were distributed all over the entire Old World” [e.a.], which agrees with the Oahspe verse: “In all parts of the earth there lived ground people,”25 that is, H. erectus types. Weidenreich painstakingly showed how H. erectus, at many locations, not just Africa, preceded the modern type. Called polycentric evolution (but sometimes parallel evolution or convergence), this approach sees early man grading into the modern type in Europe, Australasia, China, and even the Americas. Not just Africa.

But what does convergence really mean? Does it mean parallel evolution? I don’t think that’s possible. Ultimately, simply, and parsimoniously, it represents the mating of disparate types (AMH and Druk), occurring in all parts of the world.

Figure 11.2. Broken Hill (Kabwe) skull (top) compared to La Chapelle-aux-Saints Neanderthal (bottom).

“Convergent evolution is really a special kind of coincidence,” offered Richard Dawkins,26 apparently in an effort to offset the implausibility of evolution happening the very same way in lots of different places. Coincidence. But what exactly does Dawkins’s statement mean? Does it mean parallel mutations (the same accidental mutations, the same changes) miraculously and coincidentally, occurring in all the separate places where modern man arose? That would be a marvelous feat indeed!

Darwin’s own improbable monogenesis forced him to ponder: How on Earth have the same types managed to arise in unrelated parts of the world?^*137 To answer this, evolution wed itself to pseudomigrations. How does one explain, otherwise, the parallels between the Paleolithic stages of India, Europe, and Africa?

Isn’t it wiser to allow the same types of early races to have mixed, interbred, in each of those different localities? The fact is that Darwin’s stubborn monogenism has been pretty much disproven—if only because a single origin forces the different races (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid, and so on) to evolve or rather diverge too rapidly. Yet now again, monogenism reincarnates in the illogical OOA theory.

THE GREAT EXODUS

Was Au “unique to Africa,” as is claimed and required by the OOA Garden of Eden? Since Australopithecus presumably evolved to H. erectus only in Africa, we should, of course, not be finding any Au elsewhere. And if we do, we must ignore or debunk it.

Rewind about fifty years: Au in Asia was actually common knowledge among paleo students until the latter half of the twentieth century, that is, before OOA became de rigueur. “Until recently [1973], it was thought that from forms like Australopithecus, which lived in Asia [e.a.], Pithecanthropus could have originated.”27 Au. robustus features were indeed evident in Java’s Sangiran VI and VIII specimens. And near Java, various Au traits were discerned in the amazing Flo (hobbit), who possessed both H. erectus and Au features—thick bones, Au-type wrist structure, pelvis, and stature, and very long arms.

I would not be surprised if australopithecine remains start turning up outside Africa.

DEAN FALK, THE FOSSIL CHRONICLES

Although Falk acknowledges that “australopithecines were thought to have lived exclusively in Africa,” she does remark that Indonesia’s “LB1 [hobbit] had arms . . . similar to those of the famous australopithecine Lucy . . . and closely resembled the little, short-legged and small-brained australopithecines. . . . The inside of [LB1’s] . . . lower jaws has a little ledge that was typical for australopithecines”; other features “harkened back to early Homo habilis.” Well, if hobbit branched off from H. habilis, that would have been before the great (part one) H. erectus exodus from Africa. And that’s a problem. But here is the solution: Flo’s “lineage left Africa before” H. erectus evolved, as suggested by anthropology professors Peter Brown, Mike Morwood, and William Jungers, Brown postulating that australopithecines “migrated out of Africa a very long time ago”!28

But Au were indigenous to each of their locales, their supposed move OOA even greater folly than making travelers out of H. erectus.

Isn’t it interesting that formerly Asia itself was called Asu-wa—for it was covered over with Asu man, the primeval race, the aborigines of Earth, who abounded in Central Asia (India) during the Pleistocene. In Sri Lanka we have found his descendants, the extremely primitive, race of Nittevo. Were they ape-men? They walked on two legs and had short arms and very hairy legs, indeed a reddish “fur” over most of their bodies. Completely naked, they were a tree- and cave-dwelling people. Asia’s most spectacular tree climbers, the Nittevo were at home in the trees, with their powerful grasping hands (and “claws”). With Nittevo, we are almost back where we started—with Asu man, our very first (tree-loving) ancestor. In China, too, Asu man lived alongside H. erectus,29 contradicting the “unique to Africa” idea: Au teeth have been found in China at Hubei and Guangxi provinces. Teeth from China’s Longgupo cave, it was thought, “belonged to an ape,” this pre–H. erectus man dated to 2 myr.

Time line is important, so we must ask: Why did South African Au live at the same time as Far Eastern H. erectus? Au, according to theory, is supposed to have evolved into H. erectus before the latter moved OOA and on to the Far East. But Au led to H. erectus “not necessarily”30 in Africa alone, his remains noted in the Jordan Valley, China, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, and Java, the last referring to G. H. R. Von Koenigswald’s 1952 discovery of Meganthropus, a creature older than H. erectus and possessing some Au traits.

H. habilis–like industries (more archaic than those of H. erectus) are found in Pakistan: these 2-myr chopping tools of the habiline type don’t exactly fit with 1-myr or 1.6-myr or even 1.8-myr H. erectus as our first migrant OOA to fill an “empty” world. And then there is the Zinj-like Dmanisi Man, in the Caucasus: How was this pre–H. erectus (outside of Africa) handled? By coining another wave of migration, of course. I’d get rich collecting a toll for every imagined journey OOA.

Be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it, as new facts become available.

FRED HOYLE AND N. C. WICKRAMASINGHE, EVOLUTION FROM SPACE

This odd Dmanisi race was christened when six specimens with some Au traits (like upper-arm anatomy) were found in the Caucasus and tentatively assigned to early H. erectus, if only because of the time frame. But at 1.8 myr, he was older than most African H. erectus, such as Kenya’s Turkana Boy at 1.6 myr; and Dmanisi’s brain was smaller than Turkana Boy’s (which was 900 cc). Dmanisi was smaller (in both height and brain) than H. erectus, his brain H. habilis–sized at only 600 to 750 cc. Don’t such habiline traits prove other Gardens of Eden besides Africa?

Complicating matters, Dmanisi’s feet and body were of more modern proportions than H. habilis. On the other hand, his prominent canines were almost Zinj-like (robust Au). Described as a hodgepodge, this Dmanisi race had skulls exhibiting a splendid mosaic of features—obviously a mixture of races.

Discovered in a medieval Georgian town, Dmanisi had huge primitive canines; the point is Dmanisi actually looked ancestral to Africa’s H. erectus. Uh-oh. But not to worry: the fire was put out by changing his name to H. ergaster. But some of them had traits that predate H. ergaster (a predecessor of H. erectus), and crazier still, Africa’s Turkana Boy was also labeled an H. ergaster! What a mess. Immediately after noting these uncomfortable facts, Fagan nonetheless declared that “Dmanisi has strong African associations.”31 On what basis? He did not go on to elaborate.

Dmanisi’s mixed and archaic morphology (and its date) was so troublesome to OOA that one scientist said flat out that they ought to put it back in the ground! Said archaeologist Chris Hardaker in The First Americans, “If there was ever an equal to Olduvai’s Zinj [an Au], the Dmanisi discovery was it.” Here was yet another early type, too early, found “aberrantly” outside Africa. Did this pea-brained creature travel from Africa, thousands of miles over new ground (three thousand miles from Olduvai)? Hardaker cries in the wilderness: “How could they have done it without at least some of the Upper Paleolithic [mod] qualities and faculties . . .?”32 Besides, what were these naked “émigrés” doing in the cold Caucasus, when the presumed route^*138 of travel OOA was along the warm southern rim of Asia?

Overall, scientists regarded Dmanisi’s brain as way too small for such an ambitious undertaking, his huge canine teeth indicating a very primitive hominid, indeed more archaic than the first H. erectus supposed to have made the great migration. Dmanisi was not inclined or constructed for migration. Instead of giving up OOA, the response was to declare that something even more apelike than H. erectus probably made the great exodus OOA: “leaving Africa didn’t require a big brain. . . . They took a long hike, and they made it.” But their rudimentary tools, of the most primitive type, don’t jibe with the tool kit of travelers.

The last field season at Dmanisi (1991) confirmed these were the oldest hominid bones ever found in Eurasia. Which made analysts wonder if this Homo georgicus evolved separately from African hominids and if “Homo erectus evolved from this primitive Dmanisi stock somewhere in Asia,” painting in yet another handy scenario, “and then moved back to Africa. Maybe there were multiple migrations back and forth.”33 Lotta maybes and ad hoc journeys in this highly subjunctive out-of-Africa dictum. Better look to Asia, some thought.

MOTHER ASIA—AND BEYOND

In 1997 a primatologist told the National Geographic writer Rick Gore: “The idea that all hominids originated in Africa is a myth created by people working in Africa. Sure, they’ve found a lot there, but if we’d invested that much time and money in Asia, we would find fossil hominids just as old there, too.”34

MtDNA analysis, called in to support OOA, came up with a notably small number of mutations distinguishing the living races of men; it was then (gratuitously) assumed that everyone must have descended from a single ancestral root population. But since it is hard to get DNA from fossils older than Neanderthal (ca 35 kya),35 how can such a judgment be made about people of much earlier times (the modern African dispersal, part two, is said to have begun some 80 kya or even 133 kya)?

Craniometric surveys have found that the little (Bay of Bengal) Andamanese people, though black skinned, actually have more affinities with Asians and Polynesians than with Africans. Blood groups, antigens, and proteins relate these Negritos to Oceanic and Asian populations, not Africans. So how can anyone say the Andamanese or Australians or Javanese are descended of migrants who left Africa? Neither are Australian Aborigines Negroid in type, but a mix of Caucasian and Melanesian genes. “Although dark in skin color, neither the Australians nor the Wadjak [Javanese] skulls are ‘Negroid.’ We still have a very great deal to learn in these matters,” cautioned Robert Braidwood.36

Very early art in northwest Australia (at Jinmium) has been dated to 75 kya (twice the age, incidentally, of the earliest known cave paintings in France). This discovery presented a problem to scientists who “have long assumed that Homo sapiens lacked the seafaring technology to have reached Australia before about 50,000 years ago.” By now you can probably guess what the simple solution was: perhaps “modern humans were on the move much earlier.”37 On the move? Or there all along?

The there-all-along idea (which is polygenism) garners support from burials found at Lake Mungo, Australia, where gracile types are much older than the primitive Kow Swamp type. The Lake Mungo Specimen 3, dated 60 kyr, is AMH, “a challenge to current opinions on human origins,”38 as is WLH50, a very early Australian Caucasoid. Was there high culture here so long ago? (Appendix D charts a dozen Oceanic sites indicative of advanced engineering and architecture in a long-forgotten lost horizon.) But because Australia’s later Kow Swamp people (10 kyr) were robust and erectoid, theorists postulated—you guessed it—separate waves of migrations. But there were two strains living there all along, not two separate migrations or colonizations.

Maybe Prince Regent River offers a clue to the puzzle of early mods (like Lake Mungo Man) in Australia, people who lent their Caucasian genes to today’s Aborigines, for here are singular cave paintings depicting European types, the men bearded, the women delicate; behind them is a snake, which is the Aborigines’ symbol of the most remote past: Dreamtime. Of equal interest are Australia’s huge limestone pillars near Roper River, attributed to members of a white race—the site boasting streets and polished walls. Are they the same people depicted as bearded Caucasians in the rock art of central Australia near Alice Springs? Might they also be the ancestors of the Murrian people of south and southeast Australia, possessed of a Caucasoid skull form, light skin, beards, and narrow noses? Australian archaeologist Vesna Tenodi is on record stating that much of her country’s protohistory has been suppressed by the Australian Archaeological Association (AAA), which “has turned into a political body whose main concern is to please Aborigines. Thanks to the AAA, fossilized human remains were destroyed. These included remains from pre-Aboriginal time, which proved the existence of highly developed pre-Aboriginal races before the arrival of the ancestors of the current Aboriginal tribes.”39

The archaic whites of Australia were of a similar cast to the Japanese Ainu, both of whom have nothing to do with Africa, but do represent an aboriginal white race of the Far East and beyond. Indeed, Dixon had these proto-Australians in the region before proto-Negroids ever wandered OOA. DNA studies seem to corroborate this, finding at least one Lake Mungo lineage that is deeper than African Eve.40

Figure 11.3. Australian with blend of Caucasoid features, note beard.

Before OOA became de rigueur, William Howells reported that the Andaman Islanders “do not at all resemble African Pygmies of the Congo”; they are allied with Africans (by multivariate analysis) “only occasionally. . . . The Andamanese are mysterious.”41 Although these “mysterious” little people do have Bushman-like peppercorn hair and steatopygia, their closest affines reside in Papua, Southeast Asia, the Philippines, Australia, Tasmania, and Sundaland. Cranial morphology links the Andaman Islanders to Australo-Melanesians. Asian (and Oceanic) ancestry is indicated, not African.

The Andaman mtDNA lineage M is common in Asia, not Africa (where lineage I is dominant). Genetic analysis of the Onge people of the Andaman Islands reveals a special change in the Y chromosome, casting the Onge as actually ancestral to the populations of Asia. Indeed, standing OOA on its head, some theories have derived the African Negroes from the East, mankind thought to have “originated . . . somewhere in northern Asia.”42

Figure 11.4. A North Andamanese man and his son.

William H. Flower, late nineteenth-century surgeon, curator, and anatomist, considered “the south of India as the centre from which the whole of the great Negro race spread.” Hooton also speculated, based on blood group B, that Congolese pygmies came from Asia. I present these views only for sake of comparison, not because I agree. Nevertheless it is true that Africa’s pygmies are not racially aligned with Black Africans. They may share some blood types (due to intermixings), but the Negrillo is both racially and linguistically distinct from the tall African.

The tree of life looks different depending on which genes you choose to analyze.

GARRY HAMILTON, “MOTHER SUPERIOR,” NEW SCIENTIST

Geneticist Alan Templeton, entering DNA data to the computer in a different way than the Afrocentrist popularizers, got Europe and Asia for the last common ancestor (LCA), his team ultimately concluding that you cannot pinpoint the location of LCA using living DNA (the OOA method). “An Asian—not African origin”43 is indicated by these alternate mtDNA trees.

Before the first Au (Taung Child) was found in South Africa in the 1920s, most scholars did indeed think the Garden of Eden was in Asia—perhaps in the Pamir Plateau.

Figure 11.5. Map showing theoretical dispersal of man out of Asia (1929).

The favorite cradle for Egyptologists, ever searching for the origin of the Egyptian kingdoms, has been Asia, not sub-Saharan Africa. Shot from the Stone Age, Egyptian civilization “didn’t evolve. . . . Architecture, engineering, medicine, science and well-organized big cities materialized within a century or two—almost as if they had been imported from somewhere else.”44 Somewhere outside Africa. Stephen Oppenheimer and others have identified Southeast Asia as the center of innovations that eventually reached the West, contributing navigation, astronomy and farming to the “historical” cultures.

The people of southern India have been traced to Southeast Asia, not Africa—their languages related to those of Burma and Cambodia. “Java and . . . all of southeast Asia is a serious rival to the [African] cradle of mankind.”45 Dixon’s brachycephalic AMHs came into Europe from the East (Asia Minor, Russia, India), not from Africa. Finally, the disperal of myth cycles (creation legends) seems to have an Austronesian/Asian source: the fact that the Far Eastern stories are “more complex and internally coherent than the Mesopotamian versions supports the view that the diffusion pattern may have been from East to West rather than the other way round.”46 Indeed, Mesopotamia’s monument builders are also traced to the East.

If moderns came out of Africa and spread throughout the world, why should such civilized industries as rice cultivation be evident in China and India 47 before they got to Africa? Early rice-growing dates in the Malay Peninsula presage the westward spread of farming into India. Microliths (used on farming scythes?) may be as old as 60 kyr in Sri Lanka, not appearing in the Mediterranean until 10 kya.

The Belgian archaeologist Marcel Otte, in The Aurignacian in Asia, does not accept OOA, pointing instead to the Zagros Mountains as the hub of Upper Paleolithic industries. Michael Cremo has also presented arguments for mods arising not in Africa but in Pakistan, Siberia, and Russia.48 The earliest ivory carving of figurines (a craft developed only by modern humans) is found in Russia and dated 45 kyr. If mods originated in Africa, why are there no such artifacts of ivory south of the Sahara, though they are found in Europe and western Asia? The high art of the French and Spanish caves was, according to Cambridge archaeologist and historian Colin Renfrew, “not a general feature of early Homo sapiens in Africa.” North Africa’s rich heritage of rock art, after all, is of recent date. “Only in France and Spain . . . can the human revolution be generally associated with the appearance of art. Elsewhere at this time there was little or no.”49 Contemporary South African sites were still using Middle Stone Age technologies at this time.50

Why is there no Homo sapiens explosion in Africa? Instead there are signs of it at such places as Russia, Czechoslovakia, the Americas, Turkey, Japan, Sri Lanka, and Oceania.

NO ONE KNOWS

Where he [Cro-Magnon] came from or how he came about we have not the slightest idea.

ASHLEY MONTAGU, MAN: HIS FIRST TWO MILLION YEARS

Those cave artists in Western Europe were, of course, the Cro-Magnon people, the first known edition of true modern man. But “no one knows where the Cro-Magnon came from.”51 Guesses include: “The Cro-Magnon race is thought to have emigrated to North Africa from Europe”52 (to, not from). In Afghanistan (at Kara Kamar), Coon found remains of Aurignacian Cro-Magnons older than the European ones, suggesting again an eastern origin. Arthur Keith, for his part, predicted that when digs are undertaken in Asia, “we may expect to find the earlier history of the Cro-Magnon race,” who he thought resembled today’s Sikhs.53

The unanswered question is: Why do we find their Upper Paleolithic industries (fine tools, artistic works, quarries, and so on) starting abruptly in western Europe around 40 or 35,000 BP and somewhat earlier to the east? The answer: Because they represent a hybrid (instant) race—the second wave (39 kyr) of Ihuans, the fount of Aurignacian culture. One of the earliest models of European man was found in the 35 kyr mandible at Pestera cu Oase (Southwest Romania); then moving west of the Danube, AMH fossils begin to appear, dating to 32 kya and getting younger the farther west we go.

Now it is plain that for out-of-Africa (part two) to be right, mods must be earliest in Africa, having evolved only there. But consider the Ainu of Japan, a very old race, indigenous to the East, though made over to represent an “ancient migration” from Europe, simply because of their (taxonomically) troublesome light color and “Caucasian” features. But how could they be from Europe when Europe was swarming with Neanderthals (not mods) at the same time the Ainu stock took form? No, Europe was the last place to be settled by Cro-Magnon AMHs: Ainu migration from Europe? No way, their skulls are Asiatic.

Figure 11.6. A major racial enigma, the Ainu combine Mongoloid and Caucasoid features, not African ones.

Neither do we find the earliest mods of China or Europe or Australia or Indonesia resembling (facially, cranially) any fossil men of Africa. Nor do “the languages of East Africa have [any] demonstrable relation to the languages of Asia.”54 China’s sites at Jinniushan, Dali, and Maba all have archaic H. sapiens types, which show continuity from China’s own (indigenous) erectoid forms. Jinniushan woman, for instance, (dated 250 kya) has a large cranial cap, thin cranial bones, and much reduced supraorbital region, clearly someone in between the old erectoid type and today’s Chinese. Nothing African about it. Chinese paleontologists have pointed out this continuity from Peking Man (Sinanthropus) to the present people of China, indicating local development only. Indeed, a real problem (for Afrocentrists, anyway) is the persistence of Sinanthropus’s shovel-shaped incisors (and several other features) in modern Mongoloid populations. This continuity comes under the multiregional (and polygenetic) approach, sometimes called Noah’s Sons, which, in opposition to OOA (sometimes called Noah’s Ark), holds that mod characteristics arose independently in different parts of the world.

TABLE 11.1. EARLY AMH FEATURES IN PLACES OUTSIDE AFRICA
Where/Who	Feature	Date
Borneo, Niah Cave/Deep Skull	Mod skull	52 kyr
China/Dali, Maba, Liujiang fossils	Mod features	ca 75 kyr
France/Fontéchevade Man	Mod features	70 kyr
France, Nice, Terra Amata	Borderline between H. erectus and H. sapiens	400 kyr
Germany/Hamburg	Carvings of mods	200 kyr
Germany/Heidelberg Man	Mod dentition	400 kyr
Germany/Steinheim Man	Mod forehead	300 kyr
Hungary/Vertesszollos Man	1,500 cc brain	100–700 kyr
India/Narmada skull	Mod feature	Mid-Pleistocene
Iran, Hotu Cave/skeletal remains	Mod skulls	100 kyr
Israel, Qafzeh/skeletal remains	AMH	78 kyr
Italy/Castenedolo skulls	Modern	Pliocene
Java/Sangiran 17	Robust H. sapiens	700 kya^*139
UK, England/Swanscombe Man	1,325 cc; the first “cast-iron” case of early AMH	250 kyr^†140
UK, Wales, Pontnewydd Cave/teeth	Mod mandible and vertebrae	225 kyr

Franz Weidenreich, the brilliant German-Jewish anatomist and paleoanthropologist who inspired today’s multiregional approach, traced the earliest Javanese H. erectus up to Sangiran, Wadjak, and Ngandong, and right on up to the tribal people of today’s Java. Continuity. Milford Wolpoff, a leader of today’s multiregional school, questions the dating of putative earliest man in Africa and argues persuasively for H. erectus populations moving in the modern direction, not only in Africa but also in Europe and Asia, with “occasional interbreeding” (getting along)—versus the OOA replacement (extirpation) model. “I see continuity everywhere,” says Wolpoff. He is right. In fact, the independent and worldwide (not just African) appearance of early AMHs can be seen in Java, America, and Europe, putting paid to OOA and its Africa-only origin of mods.

South Africa is not the only area yielding earlier origin dates for modern man. Very early dates for fully modern man are also coming in from Australia and America.

JEFFREY GOODMAN, THE GENESIS MYSTERY

Fagan has written that the study of African Adams (meaning mods), using Y chromosome, yeilds dates to only 59 kya. Well, if this is right, why do we find AMH features that age or older in regions outside Africa? Why does the genetic line of the Malaysian Semang (Negritos) as well as Australia’s Negritos go back more than 60 kyr?

HAM, SON OF NOAH

With several different kinds of humans running around early Africa, the question has been posed: What caused this wonderful proliferation of types? The usual answer is that some environmental change created new selective pressures for gene mutation. The climate card. This brings us right back to the unsolved problem of radical variability. And some new answers.

There is general recognition that Africans have greater genetic diversity than other people, but the significance of that fact remains unclear.

MARVIN L. LUBENOW, BONES OF CONTENTION: A CREATIONIST ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN FOSSILS

Ham’s habits, as we will come to see, explain that “significance.” We have mentioned Noah’s sons Jaffeth (in Asia) and Shem (in India and the Near East). The third son was Ham (in Africa, see Genesis 10:6–14). Now, with genetics as handmaiden of OOA, mtDNA studies claim that mods have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else. This assumption is based on the following observation: As distance and time removed from Africa increases, diversity diminishes. Native Americans, for example, have much less variety in their genomes than Africans.

It was this great diversity in Africa that moved theorists to suppose that Africa is both the oldest population and the founder population of our species, Homo sapiens. A University of Cambridge study, for example (which used data from thousands of skeletons all less than 2,000 years old), determined that the farther a population was located from Africa, the fewer variations in skull shape; and this was apparently corroborated by DNA, which said that mods arose in Africa 200,000 or 150,000 BP and spread out (migrated) about 50,000 years ago.

In my view, however, variations and diversity appear simply by mixing different races, not by mutations or climate changes. This is where the sons of Ham enter the picture. From Ham’s unique history, we will discover why the East African “Hamitic strain” is associated with Caucasoids, and why Saharan and Sudanese tribes are an exact cross between Caucasoids and African Negroes. In the quote that follows, the key word is interbreeding: “The entire area from North Africa to the Sudan is one of the major zones of interbreeding in the world. . . . A massive interchange of genes between Caucasoids and Africans has clearly taken place in Africa in the past.”55

The gloriously mixed Berber have wavy or curly hair, heavy beards, hawk and straight noses, and lightish eyes. The Somalis have black skin and frizzy hair combined with facial features of the European mold. And along the Nile, between Cairo and Khartoum, we find nothing but an intermediate series between the South European type and Negro.

Stretching from the east coast of Africa (the point of Ham’s entry from Pan), from Cameroon to Senegal, the people are “extremely black in the west; they tend to become slightly lighter eastward”—and also shorter. Both paleness and shortness are signs of Ihins, in this case, the Hamitic sons of Noah who settled Africa 24 kya. A further example is the Tibbus tribe of the Sahara, a mixture of proto-Negroid and Caspian—tall and very black, yet the hair is not woolly, the nose is aquiline, and prognathism is absent. “All Negros are partly Caucasoid by interbreeding,”56 which is further indicated by common blood groups and architecture of the teeth.

Of all colors were the tribes of Ham . . . with hair red, and white, and brown, whereby might be traced in after ages the genealogy of nations.

OAHSPE, THE LORDS’ FIFTH BOOK 3:3 AND 3:13

The White Lady of Brandberg is a rock painting in southwest Africa, showing Bushmen standing next to white women with European profiles and yellow or red hair. Kalahari cave art in Damarland, according to the world’s leading authority on these paintings, Henry Breuil, was unmistakably the work of a mysterious race of white people. But not so mysterious, once Ham, Noah’s son in Africa, is factored in.

A British major stationed at Africa’s Gulf of Guinea once saw the members of a tribe marching toward the shore as a canoe was approaching, with white-painted natives. He asked what the apparent ritual was about and was told that “it was a custom handed down from the very earliest times, perpetuating the tradition that white men had come once from . . . an island now no longer in existence.”57 Those men were lawgivers and teachers of justice.

Another telling tradition, that of the African Herreros, a Bantu tribe, says that after a great deluge, white men came and mingled among them. Were they the teachers and lawgivers we so often hear about in world traditions, founders who came from across the sea? One great puzzle is how Africa’s Ituri forest Efe people have long known of planet Saturn as “the star of nine moons.” (Its nine moons were not discovered in the West until 1899.) How did the Efes know this? Well, the Dogon of Africa also claim to have received cosmic information from teachers who gave them knowledge of the stars. Local legends of white gods have long intrigued scholars of Africa, and if oral history be credited, those gods (the euhemerized sacred tribes of Ham) once inhabited their country. (Also deified was Chamha, the solar god of Syria, called Hama in Persia; while the name Ham itself is the Zeus of ancient Greece.) But they were Ihins, mortals, the holy sons of Noah, called Ham.

One way or another, Caucasoids and their ancestors have played a major role in the genetic history of sub-Saharan Africa.

JOSEPH THORNDIKE, MYSTERIES OF THE PAST

And this is the key to Africa’s mysteries: When the Caucasian-like Hamites reached Africa, they ignored the rules given to all the Ihins, and mixed freely with the indigenous black people (Genesis 9:25–27). No, Africans are not the oldest people in the world, but the most varied by reason of admixture.^*141 For the Ihins who settled Africa “broke the law of God more than all other Faithists, being of warm blood—and they mixed greatly with the [African] Ihuans . . . and they ceased to exist as a separate people, because of their amalgamations.”58 For the “warm-blooded” Ham (the name for the Ihins who settled Africa) mingled with aboriginal types. This Hamitic Cro-Magnon Man, as the patriarchs took every opportunity to stress, was the most rebellious, licentious son of Noah. His descendants, as these old stories claim, “married a thousand wives.”

My point is this: Greater genetic variation in African populations represents neither deeper time nor more mutations, but crossbreeding only. In fact, this unbridled mixing is exactly the opposite of the “persistent isolation” posited by the mtDNA people to explain the greater genetic diversity in Africa! Diversity (variation) is the face of nothing more complicated than amalgamation.

“Africa is racially the most confusing of all continents.”59 African blood proteins and mtDNA are more varied than elsewhere, yet this is due neither to immensity of time, greater population, environmental instability, nor mutations—but simply to Ham, the mixer. The full impact of this mingling in Africa is evidenced by the fact that here “the Chellean, Acheullean and Mousterian [material] cultures are not sharply defined . . . as in Europe.”60 Admixture is also expressed in the blurring of borders: the indigenous populations of Africa are mostly clinal, that is, blending, overlapping from one region to the next.

Greater variability in Africa? Not according to Stephen Oppenheimer’s work, which has shown it is actually the least in Africa, from the point of view of tribal legends: Tracing origin myths to their geographical root, Oppenheimer found they spread from Oceania across the Indian Ocean to Africa. “In looking for a homeland . . . look for the region with the deepest and greatest diversity of story-types. . . . Africa clearly has the least diversity, Australasia . . . has the most.”61 Even geneticists have gotten a similar result in connection with the path of disease-related molecules: “The greatest diversity in the frequency of gene variants lay outside Africa . . . Oceania . . . had much more variation.”62

Notwithstanding all I have said, I hasten to add: There was a great African diaspora, but it was postflood. Dating no earlier than 24 kya, these were the outward-bound peregrinations of Ham. Yes, waves of men did come OOA, but only in the Upper Paleolithic, after the flood, in the Solutrean. Neolithic Negroids in Europe (dolichocephalic, prognathous, African in proportion of limbs) have been uncovered in Switzerland, Lombardy, Brittany, and North Italy. Thus do scholars find an African aspect to French sculptures and implements of the Mesolithic. “Bushman mural art is extraordinarily like that of our [French] caves,” Marcellin Boule marveled. “The two centers are united by a long, connected series of works of art, from France to the Cape by way of Spain, North Africa, the Soudan, the Tehad States and the Transvaal. This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations . . . stocking southern Europe. . . .The Grimaldi Negroid skeletons [on the Riviera] show many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons.”63

Of all the sons of Noah, Ham was the “travelingest” man. “To Ham I allotted the foundation of the migratory tribes of earth . . . to teach the barbarians.”64 In their path, the Hamite tribes taught mining, metals, writing, crafts, and astronomy, also instructing the Druks and Neanderthals about the world beyond. Thus did Aham become a sacred name and the language of oracles in Arabinia, the name Ham notable also in the original term for Egypt—Aham or Khamet (Hemia to the Greeks).

The civilizing aura of Ham is enshrined in places like Jebel Dukham in Bahrein (with its mound fields^*142), Abu El ‘Idham in Transjordan, Hamman and Hamath in Syria, Hama on the Orontes, the Hamrin basin of lower Mesopotamia, Tehama (along the Red Sea), and the Interahamwe tribe of Africa. Even the African-transmitted cult of kerham (the Breton dolmens) was carried from Africa to Europe, the route of these “Ethiopians” threaded through Iberia to northwest Europe.

In addition, the Ogham script, seen on ancient megalithic stones of the Celt-Iberian region, recalls the Great Zimbabwe Ruins, constructed of quite similar cut stones, most unusual in Africa, its walls comparable to the forts of Ireland, suggesting that these megalithic structures were built by the same people. In the British Isles, the noble ham name, as suffix, lives on at Brixham, Durham, Tottenham, Chatham, Upham, Egham, Birmingham, Bingham, Wickham, Newham, and many other places. Even the English word hamlet signifies “settlement” (civilization).

BLACKS DID NOT TURN WHITE

Those émigrés from Africa (part two) who allegedly settled all the world (long before the flood) were, of course, dark skinned and, according to theory, turned white and yellow in Europe and Asia! Different skin colors presumably developed under “genetic selection” after moving out of Africa.

This is certainly one of the most outrageous parts of OOA, that these African migrants lost their dark skin and distinctive hair and turned into Mongoloids and Caucasians, the original African genome lost to “genetic drift.” It is the same bizarre and anti-scientific school of thought that claims Neanderthals at higher latitudes “were probably depigmented.”65 Negroes, say our anthropogenecists, turned into Orientals at a late stage of human evolution,^*143 simply by migrating northeast and adapting to the new environment. Wondrously, Africans changed into Mongols in a few thousand years!

As the argument for lightening runs, white skin appears as an adaptation, the pale coloring of northern Europeans due presumably to mutations favoring a dimly lit environment, thus selecting depigmented skin in cloudy periglacial regions. As for the depigmentation of Africa’s own lighter-toned pygmies, this evolved because their campsites were in the shade, just as other Negrito populations allegedly got depigmented in forested regions.

That whites or anyone else owe their light complexion to a process of depigmentation is entirely specious. “All of them propagated after their own kind, and do so to this day. And though the blacks might live for thousands of generations . . . in any country in the world, they would never become whites.”66

Once again, it is race mixing, not evolution or selection, that explains the trait. After white people (the Hamite sons of Noah) entered Africa ca 24 kya, new blends quickly arose. Boskop Man, for example, found in the cliff shelters of South Africa, was a splendid Ham hybrid who would have nicely fit the bill as first mods OOA (part two)—only he was too recent! Buried only four and a half feet down, Boskop is dated (unhelpfully) anywhere between 40 and 10 kyr. Although assigned to the Mousterian culture, they were nonetheless “much later in date than the corresponding culture in Europe,”67 eliminating any African Garden of Eden.

Figure 11.7. Grafton Elliot’s tree of human evolution, showing supposed depigmentation of the modern races.

Figure 11.8. Boskop Man skull; Boskop is thought to have had deep tan or yellow-toned skin.

A composite of white Ihin (Ham) and Negroid Ihuan (the latter signaled by his supramastoid crest), Boskop Man was found in 1913 in the Transvaal. His forebrain was 50 percent larger than ours, a total of 1,800 cc! With no prognathism at all (which surprised experts in South African fossils), he was an unusual variety of the modern European type; yet there were primitive traits as well—thick skull wall and very slight chin.

Loren Eiseley was quite taken with these “unique [Boskop] people,” whom he overenthusiastically pegged as ultrahuman and the first true men. Boskop was, to Eiseley, “an unknown branch of humanity,” possessing delicate and gracefully reduced teeth, fragile jaw, small face, and fine-boned facial structure, all of which indicated “some strange inward hastening of change.”68 But this is nonsense, as is Eiseley’s doggerel that Boskop Man was “born by error into a lion country.” No error, only an offshoot of those Hamite refugees who mixed so freely with indigenous Africans. Boskop Man’s location was on the southeast African coast. Isn’t this a clue to the landing place of those arrivals from Pan?

Boskop Man’s discovery, at first exciting and controversial, was later forgotten. Since 1960, we hardly hear about him. In 2008, John Hawks blogged that Boskop is not any different than a big Bushman or Khoikhoi, with the “large skull of a Khoisan type.” Hawks concluded that the uniqueness of Boskop Man “was entirely a figment of anthropologists’ imaginations.”69 Just insignificant variations. Once more, the escape clause “variation” conceals the fact of multiple races and mixing thereof.

Figure 11.9. Khoikhois: (A) photo from Dixon, (B) Swoon/Khoikhoi bust modeled on a living subject.

SEARCH FOR MODS TURNS UP MIXES

Perhaps the weakest point of OOA is the lack of evidence for the first mods in Africa, the people who supposedly left their motherland and did all that colonizing and replacing (part two). This is the crux of OOA: Proponents must prove that Africans were the only ones to cross the H. sapiens threshold. The dawn of H. sapiens in East Africa, however, is not accompanied by an expected increase in population density, nor is the fossil evidence convincing: Ethiopia’s Omo Men, for example, were in reality a mixed bunch, some rather robust; their culture, moreover, remained Mousterian (Neanderthalian). Redated (suspiciously) from recent to 50 to 130 to 195 kyr, Omo Man looks modern enough, but his torus is continuous, and alas, he has no chin. Another Ethiopian candidate, Herto Man, very modern and big brained, was promoted as the (needed) first mod OOA, ignoring, of course, his Neanderthaloid aspects: Acheulian toolkit and thick skulls.

Turning to South Africa, Afrocentrists had another shot at OOA with the fossil men of Klasies River, possessed of modern features, high forehead, reduced brow, and strong chin; but again, all this was mixed in with more archaic and robust features. Held up as the world’s first AMHs, Klasies are actually the same age as equivalent types in the Near East (Mt. Carmel).

Located significantly at the tip of Africa, near the beach (port of Hamite landing?), Klasies is contemporary with Border Cave finds (also on the southeast coast). Both represent near modern AMHs, but again, with Mousterian culture. All these near-mod Africans lived at the same time as European Neanderthals, whose culture they shared, archaeologically speaking: same flake blades, pigments, fireplaces, limited tool range, little if any use of ivory, bone or shell, and not much hunting.

Klasies’s supposedly “complex” behavior consisted of making improved blades, hafting, and using red pigments. So what—Neanderthals used pigments, and the mixed people at Qafzeh in the Mt. Carmel caves had tools and careful burials—at the same time!70 These AMHs were basically Neanderthal in culture, not just at Klasies, but also in the Levant, the Balkans (Krapina), and the Crimea.

There were no bone/antler tools at Klasies (as used by European Cro-Magnon), which are generally regarded as an index of the true modern type. Also missing here in South Africa are the art and ornament so typical of the H. sapiens assemblage. Klasies had neither fishing,^*144 fowling, nor hunting of big animals (the “modern behavior” complex). Their hunting of eland and making of fire have been hyped as modern cognitive behavior, but these hardly comprise the H. sapiens explosion we are looking for (and, as we saw earlier, fire use has also been attributed to H. erectus).

Afrocentrists strain, making much of little. In fact, a “glaring exception to the record of advanced knowledge,” notes Paul Von Ward, “exists in [sub-Saharan] Africa.”71 How then could they be the founders of all that is modern on Earth? Sure early Africans had the gracile limbs, high forehead, and reduced brow of true H. sapiens, but these same groups have no chins, others sport robust jaws and teeth. They are just as mixed as Mt. Carmel’s proto-Cro-Magnon—and about the same age.

Klasies, let us remember, also had unmistakable cannibalism, as well as sexual dimorphism—the great difference in size between the sexes that is typical of the most archaic hominids: Klasies specimens range from large to quite tiny, the people as a whole showing the most sexual dimorphism ever found in a “modern” population. Well, maybe not so modern, after all. Indeed, with signs of cannibalism and sexual dimorphism, they do not really stand up as a paragon of H. sapiens. According to University of Chicago’s Richard G. Klein, they are too archaic in frontal arch and mandible to qualify as that paragon.

Klein also doubted the value of Border Cave specimens as first mods—the bones probably not “as old as they say.”72 Swaziland’s Border Cave Man, who coexisted with H. erectus, shows a whopping 1,500 cc (brain size) as well as a good chin. These people left an engraved object along with rather nice awls, daggers, and beads, hence their “capacity for modern symbolism.” Yet there is even earlier symbolic art in India,^*145 and some say that examples of early African “symbolic” works (like covered burials) may be the work of Neanderthals! (Indeed, a few Border Cave specimens have the Neanderthaloid brow.) Even Neanderthals made perforators and discs and prepared pigments. Border Cave, though variously and inconclusively dated at 115, 100, 90, 50, and 30 kyr, may be much more recent (Holocene). It is not clear if the bones (some only four feet down) were contemporary with the sediments in which they were found. South African hominids were found mostly in caves, which are hard to date; these breccias are considered unreliable. Most likely, these specimens represent a post-flood Ham-black mix, judging from their less-than-Negroid features, such as lack of alveolar prognathism. And isn’t it interesting that all these best candidates are on South African soil, close to the beach.

South Africa’s Florisbad Man is yet another Africa-first candidate but may actually be too recent—his scatter is anywhere from 260 to 130 to 35 kyr 73 or even much younger. Though the Florisbad face is pretty mod, it possesses an extremely broad and flat frontal bone (Neanderthaloid) and very thick skull wall. Florisbad’s stone points are Mousterian. Frankly, they can’t decide if the Florisbad skull fragment represents a Bushman, a Neanderthal, an archaic sapiens, or Cro-Magnon!

Then, too, there were some kind of early mods at Blombos Cave (again, tellingly, at the tip of South Africa), its date of 20 kya adjusted to 75 kya, thus letting them depart Africa 60 kya, which would be within the theoretical time frame of the modern exodus. But don’t bank on the date: the Blombos deposits are mixed with much overlaying of younger material. Hailed nonetheless as our OOA ancestors, these people ate a varied diet, produced engraved geometric designs, perforated seashells for ornaments, and made delicate bone points: Heating stones to sharpen spearheads is a method called pressure flaking, similar to Europe’s 20-kyr Solutrean industry. This technical know-how (even though most of the good points were recovered from a Holocene horizon) earned them the name African Athens—what a hype!

Before OOA came into fashion, Hooton, finding little evidence of Cro-Magnon ancestors in North Africa, saw no “progressiveness and acheivments” comparable to Europe’s representational art of the Aurignacian and Solutrean in Africa’s Paleolithic west of the Nile.74

OCEANIA AND THE OOA THEORY

What light have the Pacific Islanders shed on OOA theory? Has the light even been allowed in? For some reason, historians insist on deriving Oceanic peoples from elsewhere. Theory has also decided that Oceania was settled (from Southeast Asia and Sundaland) only in relatively recent time—even though plant (floral) evidence militates against this supposition. The Polynesian races, we might note, seem to combine all types: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, and Negroid. So if they came from Indonesia only one thousand years ago, where exactly did they get all those different genes? Dixon fancied the “Caucasic” element in Polynesia arrived there in Neolithic times as some stray branch of Eurasian stock, while J. B. Birdsell fancied a chain of migrations by ancient Negritos across South Asia to the Pacific.

But human life in the Pacific region goes farther back, “more than 30,000 years,”75 given the ancient argonauts of the Pacific who reached the Solomon Islands 30 kya. Almost matching this date are the remains of 28 kyr starch grains found in the Solomons at Kioly Cave on Buka Island, grains of the cultivated, not wild, taro plant.

“In the Pacific Islands alone,” thought Tom Valentine in The Great Pyramid, “there is enough evidence of previous civilizations to obliterate the theory that the cradle of civilization was the Middle East” (the statement made in the 1970s, shortly before OOA took the spotlight). Perhaps tens of thousands of years old 76 are the nine feet nine inches high lime-and-mortar cast pillars in the New Caledonian Isle of Pines; here, 400 tumuli (mounds) are three hundred feet in diameter; it was while excavating these mounds, that the pillars were found. Still, historians tell us that the first humans arrived there around 2000 BCE, even though by radiocarbon, the pillars are dated at least 13 kyr.

Today, blondism among these natives is a real clue to the genes of those early Ihins (of Pan) whose distinctive brachycephaly is also evident in the New Caledonian population. Concerning the almost global extent of such “out-of-place” blonds, let us consider the alleged colonization (of New Zealand) dated to a mere thousand years ago: The Maori, though, remember a race of round headed blonds, white little people. In their tradition, very small, fair people were once seen dancing in the sand, people with slight figures and long yellow hair. The Maori said these people had come from Hawaiki, a sunken land; just as Hawaii’s (and New Hebrides’s) legends recall a fair-haired race of highly civilized men long, long ago.

On Rotumah, too, famed for its amazing massive stone tombs, are found natives of pale skin and notably mild manners. Likewise, some of the Easter Islanders first seen by Dutch sailors in the eighteenth century were yellow- and red-haired people with quite European features. No imagined migrations (or depigmentation) can explain away these original genes for light hair, eyes, and skin, belonging to an ancient and lost race.

If Oceania was settled in such recent time, we should not find colossal engineering feats like Rotumah’s great stone tombs, or the prehistoric buildings, cyclopean monuments and megaliths, which are found at Caroline, Tonga, Easter, and Malekula Islands—all screaming Mesolithic builders, and about which the natives know nothing. Many of the South Sea Islands contain mysterious remains of enormous temples, stone-lined canals and roads, as well as pyramids (the latter at Gilbert, Marshall, Tapiteau, Tahiti, Saipan, Guam, and Tinian)—constructed by an unknown race and built long before man is alleged to have reached Oceania.

We might also ask how the thousands of distinct Oceanic cultures could have evolved in such a short span of time. When Europeans arrived in New Caledonia, for example, the sixty thousand islanders were speaking thirty-seven different languages!^*146 Yet historians say that they wandered over from Southeast Asia (mainland) only recently. They also assume that Papuans came to New Guinea from the Asian mainland, even though a thousand languages are spoken in New Guinea, a land the size of California; in Madang province alone, one hundred seventy-three distinct languages are spoken. I don’t think these people came from anywhere, not with such deep linguistic diversity.

Although some do confess that the history of island people such as the Filipino Aeta continues to baffle them, the pro forma solution has them arriving through land bridges that once linked their country with the Asian mainland. But all these hypothetical migrations turn their back on (1) the possibility of a lost continent, indeed the motherland of Pan, and (2) the likelihood that these Negritos are aboriginals having evolved in situ—rather than wending their way, by and by, from Africa.

Down under: According to current theory, the first entry (migration) into Australia by our globe-trotting Africans was 50 or 60 kya. “What could have motivated such a trip is almost beyond imagination.”77 Between Sundaland and Australia lay at least fifty miles of open sea. How could travelers from Africa have reached Australia fifteen thousand years before reaching the Levant (45 kya), which is so close to Africa? This is, to put it mildly, counterintuitive: How could Australia, the farthest from Africa, have the earliest evidence of these migrants? What is more, Australian abos, in their blood chemistry, are as far from Africans as possible (and, as we saw, they are racially Australoid with a Caucasoid base).

Australia, besides seriously challenging part two of OOA, also challenges part one, which, you may recall, claims that the earliest wave of Homo erectus OOA stopped at Indonesia; thus there should be no signs of H. erectus farther south, that is, in Australia and New Guinea. But indigenous H. erectus types are found south and east of Indonesia—at Palau for example, as well as at Australia’s Kow Swamp and Coobool Crossing (in New South Wales), where a robust H. erectus type mixed with gracile individuals. These were very different contemporary types. So, ad hoc migrations come to the rescue! Instead of taking such coexisting races at face value, evolutionists account for their differences by postulating “two or even three [separate] migrations into Australia. . . . [However] this explanation does not solve the problem,” (just shifts it off to the Asian mainland).78

It is out of fear (that mulitregionalism could be interpreted, used, in racist ways), that the monogenistic model of OOA survives as the chosen wisdom. This was the liberal position (many were Marxist) of the American anthropological establishment—to take Africa as the cradle of mankind, as if that could somehow make up for centuries of black exploitation. Thought to be politically correct, OOA is nonetheless a wrong turn, fed by a weird combination of historical guilt and intellectual sophistry. Marvin L. Lubenow’s book, Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, is the one to read for deep insight into the politically motivated OOA theory. In the end we will find that none of this Afrocentrist maneuvering can compensate for the underlying racism of Darwinism itself, which is still loath to admit the amalgamation of the races, offering instead the fiction of transmutation of species to account for the different humans in the fossil record.

Who really is the racist? OOA, posing as egalitarian, not only disdains intermarriage (hybridization) but also asserts that the superior group, like a conquering army, extirpates all the inferiors in its path (replacement model). Moreover, the Darwinian theory of competition and struggle is (and has been) easily transferred to the idea of racial or national competition, whereby the elimination of unfit races may simply be a part of evolution. Is this not racist? Darwin’s own racial bigotry (typical of his time and class) has yet to be exposed, but it is there, hiding in such passages as the one in which he argues for sexual selection, say, of skin color, according to tribal “standards of beauty”; still, he grants his reader that it is “a monstrous supposition that the jet blackness of the negro has been gained through sexual selection,”79 in other words, that it is a preferential trait.

NEW WORLD NOT SO NEW

Uncensored finds in the Americas support polygenesis, not monogenesis. It certainly upsets out-of-Africa monogenesis to find very early hominids in the New World, of all places. If the textbook version of the peopling of the New World was undertaken by perfectly modern men in the very late Pleistocene, say 15 or 20 or even 25 kya, why have crude chopping tools been found in the Americas, dating as early as 42 kyr?80 Stephen J. Gould himself mentioned inhabitants of our continent who possessed “shortened foreheads, prominent cheeks, deep-set eyes, and slightly apish nose.”81

This man, Homo erectus, as current theory goes, never crossed into the Americas.

Nevertheless, the New World has its very own edition of pithecanthropines who always called the American continent their home. What do we make of Utah and Nevada footprints with no arch,82 a trait belonging to most australopiths, H. erectus, and Neanderthals? Consider also a prognathous, beetle-browed specimen from the Southwest dated 27 kyr.83 Here, the Anasazi people, whose site yields telltale bones with cut marks, had legends of cannibalistic giants (who may well have been large H. erectus types), scoring a match with a mysterious tribe of giant red-haired cannibals who once terrorized the Nevada Indians. Indeed, giant mummies have been found in a Lovelock, Nevada, cave—apparently corroborated by nineteen-inch footprints in sandstone at Carson, Nevada. The Paiutes had a great deal to say about a race of giant “red-headed people eaters.”84

Neither are Neanderthals supposed to be in the New World, but their tools (fist hatchets) have been unearthed in Abilene, Texas, along with skulls of a dolichocephalic people, similar to specimens in Michigan and Ecuador.85 All this flies in the face of standard theory, which says mods, of the classically brachycephalic or Mongoloid type, were the very first (and actually only) people to settle America from Siberia.

Roland Dixon, in The Racial History of Man (Plate 34), mapped these dolichos in the New World, revealing that long headedness (typical of “archaic culture”) is concentrated in two widely separated areas, the largest in the Northeast coastal portions of the continent, including Greenland, and the other at the opposite extreme in southwestern regions. The Southwest, as noted above, also gave us the beetle-browed, hairy, flat-footed type, including some cannibals. Concerning that Northeastern swath, H. erectus–type tools (Acheulean), found in New York’s Catskill Mountains, are thought to be about 70 kyr—reminding us of similar Acheulian implements discovered in Chile, at the diagonally opposite end of the hemisphere.86

The American Southwest also gives us someone less refined than Neanderthal who once inhabited Santa Barbara, California (two skulls). From the coast of California to eastern Texas comes evidence of men with visor brows, depressed nasal roots, and broad noses,87 exemplified by a specimen from Central California with thick browridge and small brain case, the skull collected by Charles Ostrander in the 1970s.88

Earlier in the twentieth century, Nebraska skulls (at Long Hill), were examined by Ales Hrdlicka and proved to be low and receding with strongly marked supraorbital ridges. American physicist William Corliss more recently brought to light signs of Neanderthaloids in Nebraska and Kansas—all typified by prognathism, overhanging brow, and sloping forehead.89 Very prognathous, too, was Minnesota Woman, dated 40 kyr, with large teeth (bigger than Neanderthal’s) and long arms. She was, however, gracile and large brained: 1,345 cc (a real mix of H. erectus and modern people).

Figure 11.10. Sioux. Traces of prognathism are common in the living races in many parts of the Americas.

Speaking of Kansas’s Neanderthaloids and erectoids: There was a report some years ago in The Kansas City Times on an apparent race of giants (two skeletons with huge bones) who once lived along the Missouri River. In particular the frontal bone was very low, differing radically from any of the existing races of Indians; too, the torus was continuous and the forehead almost flat, receding back in a dramatically flat slope.

If we look carefully, we find the same archaics south of the border: depicted in Guatemalan ruins is a creature described (rather brutally) by one early observer as a “weak, purposeless, degenerate type, looselipped, chinless and imbecile”90—perhaps akin to the Solorzano skull cap found near Guadalajara, with its classic H. erectus measurements.91

Harold Gladwin, in Men Out of Asia, also gave us a peek at some primitive skulls found in Ecuador, Brazil, and Chile. These are not one-off hits, for similars appear all over Ecuador at Punin, Paltacalo, and Cuzco, the latter buried one hundred feet below the surface, indicating “the real aborigines,”92 an early race that may have gone extinct before the Indians. Although the Punin skull was labeled Australoid, I don’t think there was a Pleistocene invasion of America by Australoid people, as some have guessed; rather, these are homegrown races, born and raised in the Western Hemisphere, our very own Senor and Senora Homo erectus.

As for Brazil, well enough known (since 1970), the Lagoa Santa caves should have settled the matter of early Homo in America. Buried among the bones of extinct animals (indicating considerable age), these earliest Brazilians had an almost nonexistent (sloping) forehead and a very wide space between the eyes. With thick skull walls, these people were dolichocephalic, extremely strong, and prognathous; yet they, too, were mixed, boasting a well-developed brain, high skull, and good chin—in short, “a primitive race . . . mixed with other elements.”93 Elsewhere in Brazil, the Sumidouro cave specimens, thick skulled and large browed, not only add to H. erectus types in America, but also speak for polygenism, in their near match to equivalent types in Australia (Kow Swamp) and China (Mapa).

Though ignored and dismissed, such types are not rare but known from Ecuador to Tierra del Fuego,94 where living groups carry forward some of these ancient genes—the subject of the next chapter. In particular, Fuegans can still be encountered with a trace of the old sagittal crest, overhanging brow, and low-sloping vault. Lacking any sign of the tool kit of Old World H. sapiens (no rope, needles, lamps, nets, or pots), these people, said Charles Darwin in Descent, “possessed hardly any arts and [lived] like wild animals . . . the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.”

Homo pampaeus in Argentina, announced a century ago by multidiscplinary scientist Florentino Ameghino, possessed a “simian peculiarity of skull”—including very large orbits, so typical of the most archaic races. H. pampaeus’s crudely worked and out-sized stones at Monte Hermoso suggest a pithecanthropine of great size. Though Ameghino convincingly argued for an independent origin of South American man, his thesis was shamelessly blackballed by the mighty Smithsonian powers that be. Nevertheless, here in Argentina, the Baradero skeleton was another typical H. erectus, with long arms reaching down to the knees. In the same region, the remains of Homo sinemento brought to bear one more example of these early blends of AMHs with H. erectus types, for the H. sinemento people were very prognathous pygmies, dolichocephalic, with no chin at all yet possessed a quite modern dental arch and notably gracile build—an apparent, and very early, blend of Ihin (the AMH little people) with pithecanthropines who “disappeared without leaving descendants.”95

Figure 11.11. Dental arch, after Keith. The more modern shape of dental arch is seen in the Spy I specimen from Belgium.

This presentation of American erectoids is meant to give the reader perhaps a little more confidence in the blacklisted tenet of polygenism: man arising in all divisions of the Earth. Before the 1987 debut of the Afrocentrist Garden of Eden, the parent stock of mankind was thought to be Asian or Near Eastern and of the Caucasian race. Despite the popularization of OOA, a human itinerary out of Africa or out of anywhere else has never been proven. We have now wasted twenty-five years on Afrocentrist monogenism—a real step backward. Almost a hundred years ago, when thinkers were solid and theories were responsible, when things were not so hurried and pressured, Dixon laid out a dependable blueprint: “The whole trend of anthropological investigation can have no other outcome than the abandonment of the monogenist position and the frank acceptance of polygenism.”96 The out-of-Africa theory, as much a political statement as a piece of science, is a misguided effort to slough off the Eurocentric image that adheres to modern scholarship. Are we playing to image now? When image trumps knowledge or truth, we are headed for trouble.

Figure 11.12. Miramar Man, an H. pampaeus of Patagonia, shows extreme forehead slope and ultradolichocephaly but no brow bulge. Miramar Man was big brained at 1,464 cc and had quite a good chin—a marvelous hybrid!