Leftists incredulous at Aboriginal skull

In a thread at The Escapist, somebody cited this image from my blog:

If memory serves me right, I first found it at the now-defunct HBDbooks blog. Can you guess which one is Australian Aboriginal, and which one Slavic? The one on the left belonged to an Aboriginal man who lived some time in the 19th century. He belonged to the Pintupi (or Pintubi) tribe. Jim Vanhollebeke wrote about it on canovan.com:

The controversial Pintubi-1 skull of Australia (pictured above) is a paradox of paleoanthropology. As a hominid fossil, its so young that it has been assigned to a tribe that survived into the last century. A modern aboriginal skull. Yet its morphology could be described as archaic. The skulls history is shrouded in mystery (not unlike others from the down under). Even without documentation, its age and Australoid identity are indisputable. The man it inhabited lived An anthropologic paradox very recently (in paleo-terms), likely in the 1800s or later. It is in perfect condition and shows no signs of antiquity. The skull was discovered or obtained around 1905 near the lower Darling River in New South Wales, Australia. Beyond that, all we are able to determine is that it is said to be a large adult 50 year old male from the Pintubi tribe…
The subject skull, modern in age, yet archaic in structure is a relevant example and deserves the following brief description.
Even if a pathological oddity it would demand attention but an anthropologist at the University of Michigan assures us that this is not the case and that this specimen isn’t that unusual.

But somebody at The Escapist couldn’t believe that the Pintubi is a modern skull. He writes:

(Supposedly a comparison between an aboriginal skull and a slav skull).
For a start it comes from a blog labelled as “Jew among you” and is apparently dedicated to “race realism”. I did a reserve Google image search to find out where it had originally came from and among nuggets like Stormfront and some Nazi forum I found the original source from early 2009, over a year before your link was made:
It’s in Spanish but a quick translate brings up the skulls true identity, human vs Neanderthal! You’ve been caught red-handed.

The poster’s “research” apparently consisted of a quick google search, and involved no critical thinking. Tellingly, everybody else in that thread took his words at face value and let it go at that. Naturally, I went ahead and pointed out their error. You would think that they would be embarrassed at having mistaken an Aboriginal skull for a Neanderthal, that it would illustrate the exact opposite of what they wish to believe about race. But I predict that the matter will be dropped and ignored.
I don’t read Spanish, but I’m sure some of you readers do. So please, if it’s not too much trouble, one of you post an English translation of the important parts of the Spanish blog cited above. I’d like to know if it’s a simple mistake or perhaps something else.

This entry was posted in shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Leftists incredulous at Aboriginal skull

  1. Nyk says:

    It’s basically a description of both species, sapiens and neanderthalensis.
    But I suspect it’s a strawman blog. Why? That’s the only post, written in 2009 (or so the “writer” of the blog wants us to believe).

  2. L says:

    Typing from my phone, don’t have a keyboard handy but will translate more if desired
    The articles in spanish is mainly a summary of knowledge about pre modern human like hominids, specifically talking about the coexistence of homo sapiens and Neanderthal. It then goes on to talk about how homo sapiens may have brought about the extinction of neanderthal man.
    Pretty dry stuff, will do a literal translation if really wanted though

    • jewamongyou says:

      Thank you! I’m just trying to figure out if the author presented the Australoid skull as “Neanderthal”, and if this was a simple mistake on his part.

  3. Nyk says:

    Leftists can always check out the casts sold by the Museum of Osteology:
    Quite a few sources mistaking the poor Aborigines’ skull for those of subhumans, it seems!

    • jewamongyou says:

      Thanks for the link. I’m tempted to post it on The Escapist forum. I’m beginning to understand now why it’s called “The Escapist”; they like to escape from reality.

  4. M.G. says:

    I found the original source from early 2009, over a year before your link was made:

    The original source? Wouldn’t the original source be Jim VanHollebeke’s 2002 article where he explains in detail the skull’s provenance, etc.? Also, here VanHollebeke claims the skull casting is his own (as are, presumably, the many photos of it), originally posted in 2002.
    The Spanish text is talking about Neanderthals and homo sapiens, explaining their history, etc. Apparently it’s just some random Spaniard who did a google image search for ‘old skull,’ swiped VanHollebeke’s seven-year-old photo without attribution, and incorrectly labelled it ‘neandertal.’ (?)
    Bang-up detective skills by that internet Sherlock Holmes over at Escapist.

  5. jewamongyou says:

    Well, I just found out how The Escapist forum deals with the truth: They delete the comments! They deleted both my comments, pointing out the true nature of the skull in question, and they rescinded my posting rights.
    They didn’t delete my comment, and ban me, because of what I was saying. Rather, it was because of the link to the bones-for-sale website. They considered it spam and suspended my account for 3 days after I appealed. So I take back what wrote above.

  6. The goofy thing about that kind of escapism is that you can see that aborigines have different skull shapes by looking at their heads, I mean, while they’re alive. I couldn’t find any good images of living aborigines in profile, but I did find this. Alas, poor Yorick, but I think it backs up the photo in the OP.

  7. Mark says:

    The jaw is too pointy to be Neanderthal, and the bridge of the nose too prominent. However, one can see how the confusion arises, since the skull has the long “football” shape typical of Neanderthals, and terminates in a more pronounced “occipital bun”, than the European skull. More of the brain case is behind the face, as well, rather than above it. Note, however, the cranial volume does not appear to be smaller, but one might conjecture there is a different volume subdivision between the frontal lobes and the occipital lobes between the two skulls. Additionally, there seems to be a prominent space between the last molar and the upper part of the jaw behind it, and which is characteristic of Neander skulls. The prominent browridges are obvious, as is the forward-jutting maxilla.
    How typical is this of native Australian skulls? That at least should be easy to discover. Perhaps the skull is much older than advertised, but this could also be established quite easily.
    At the very least, one could appreciate these morpho-differences could be the result of 60 000 years of separation.

  8. Bonjour JAY :
    This is one of my favorite subjects, differences in morphology, that is, and the resultant differences in cognitive ability that come from something as primordial as cranial capacity. It’s an especially fun subject area because it can be validated by the simplest of observation in line at the Wal Mart: next time you go there, observe a true African in profile. You will note that the natural prognathous of the afro skull (thrusting forward of the lower jaw) is such that standing erect, a negro walking into a plate glass window will leave a lip print before leaving of a nose print. Some of the blacks I see here in New Orleans seem to have a thrusting jaw that puts their lips a full inch or more beyond the tip of their nose. So this area of race -realism is especially fun because the essential one banana facts of race differences that explain absolutely everything are right their in front of our faces, literally (all faces being equal). The forces of obfuscation however were extremely powerful in the past (which is why even this obvious reality is invisible to most people, white and black alike). Remember that the great Dr. Samuel Morton addressed this essential science in his 1830s “Crania Americana”. The late Stephen Jay Gould of course wrote the Mismeasure of Man exclusively to delegitimize Morton’s findings (that is, that on average the african cranium is 20% smaller in capacity than the euro skull, which translates into a full 120 gram brain weight differential). Funny how that one standard deviation in morphological terms carries over every single time into every other area of measurement. And of course all you guys no doubt know that the verminous little weasel Gould was totally outed as a fraud and a liar last summer.
    What a fun subject. I’ve really enjoyed peaking past the curtain of Western dishonesty and savouring the truth. Check out erectuswalksamongst.us, (chapter 9 especially), for an excellent discussion of all this.
    – Arturo

  9. Sid says:

    I often wonder what world history would’ve been like if other hominids had survived to the days of civilization. (If you’re about to say that there were “hobbits” in Indonesia when Jericho’s first stones were laid, you’re missing the point.)
    All human beings we encounter today come from a small branch of homo sapiens. True, there was some admixture with the Neanderthals, Denisovans and an obscure archaic group in Africa, but most of our genome comes from a small, distinct line of the hominid tree. Even though Aboriginals look archaic, they’re still ultimately homo sapiens. I wonder what would’ve been the case if a branch of the homo erectus had survived, for example.

  10. Amateur says:

    It is a common approach to stipulate H sapiens and H erectus as different species. However, the reality is that over time, the latter evolved slowly, and with no clear dividing line, into the former. Archaic H sapiens is another category which might or might not qualify for species status.
    Speciation, strictly speaking, requires that the 2 putative groups could not interbreed successfully. Not only is this impossible to test, but it is highly unlikely to be the case as far as H sapiens and H erectus are concerned.
    Rather, what you have is a very gradual cline which continued to change slowly; people who “peeled off” into isolation early on presumably preserved the morphology of humanity at the time they separated.
    What this could mean is that the Australian Aboriginals migrated away from Africa at a time when all humans looked like they do; ie, like very archaic H sapiens, and that this occurred a very long time ago, perhaps 70 – 80 000 years ago.
    Certainly modern Blacks in Africa do not exhibit these particular archaic skull features but it is highly unlikely they evolved anew in Aboriginals; they could be primitive features “frozen” in time. The argument against this is that Bushmen and Hottentots in Southern Africa, who might be the oldest representatives of H sapiens, do not look like this.
    The only other conceivable explanation – and it is intriguing, given the Aboriginals passed through the land of the “hobbit” – is that they interbred with surviving H erectus in Indonesia and acquired the interesting cranial morphology in this manner.
    I don’t think anyone else has posited this, but I might be mistaken.

  11. Bored Translator of Spanish says:

    FWIW, here’s a full translation.
    We commonly say “human” or “humanity” to refer to all the individuals of our species, the word “homo” comes from Latin and means “human”. Today, we are the only humans, but there others who eventually became extinct. For long periods, various pro-[=”para-“?]humans and humans coexisted. Homo sapiens, our species, coexisted with another species of human, the so-called Homo neanderthal, in what is Europe today, until about 30,000 years ago. Both were hunter-gatherers, used stone tools, wore clothing, and buried their dead. It’s estimated that Neanderthal reached Europe about 200 centuries before our species, adapting to the cold climate.
    Humans, or those of the genus homo, are characterized by their relatively large cranial capacity for a large brain, upright posture, walking on two feet, an agile thumb opposed to the other fingers for delicate manipulation of objects, and use of tools. The first transition to humanity was called the Australopithecus, the first ape to adopt upright posture and walk on two feet. His predecessors were always more confident in a vertical position, and the change in holding their body was taking place before the selection of traits that were favored by such a posture, traits that were replicated in future generations. The physical differences between the sapiens and the Neanderthals in accordance with the pieces of evidence from bones are that the neanderthal had a bigger skull for a bigger grain, more prominent supra-orbital ridges, narrower face, more receding chin, wider hips, smaller stature and greater robustness than the sapiens, with a more rounded skull, thinner bone walls and smaller hips. Both humans came from a common ancestor (another human, homo erectus), but they were different species (because of which interspecies reproduction was impossible), and this has been completely corroborated through studies of DNA sequences carried out in recent years, DNA obtained from different Neanderthal remains, whereby in various experiments the same sequence was obtained, this sequence varying greatly from that of sapiens. The genome of Neanderthal man finished being deciphered last year. Neanderthal man is not an ancestor of ours, as was speculated for a long time, but was a distinct contemporary species that eventually became extinct. It’s estimated that the separate evolution began about 500,000 years ago.
    What would it be like if this human contemporaneous with our species had survived?
    Unfortunately, our violent historical record – selfdestruction through territoriality, racism against other varieties, xenophobia, power, social segregation and acts of ecocide – give rise to considering it as a plausible explanation of Homo neanderthal’s extinction that Homo sapiens exterminated him. Now we are the only species of human, we hold as our closest biological relative the chimpanzee, member of the family with which we share 98% of our genes. Regarding the decipherment of Neanderthal man’s genome, Richard Green, investigator of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, notes, “For the first time, we’ve constructed a sequence with ancient DNA that essentially contains no errors. With this human we shared more than 99% of our genetic sequence, both having in their genome the gene FOXP2, the key gene of human speech, which means that the common ancestor of both had it.” Homo sapiens was therefore not the only one with the “gift” of speech during the upper paleolithic.

  12. Joe Furphy says:

    It’s easy to tell, from first principles that some of this is nonsense. The Pintubi live in the Western Desert (NT/WA) about 2000km from the lower Darling River. It’s equivalent to saying that a skull found near the River Thames, England, ‘is said to be a 50 year old male from the Croatian tribe’.
    There has been a lot of research on hominid fossils (and the anatomy of modern people) from the Murray Darling River region (preserved here because of the age and character of the sediments), and while there are remarkable anatomical differences within the past Australian population, and therefore plenty to debate, it would make sense to start with actual data, available in numerous books and research papers. None of the researchers attribute individual skulls to specific modern tribes, basically because you can’t.

    • jewamongyou says:

      It seems you have misunderstood what has been written about this skull. Nobody’s claiming that, based on its characteristics, it came from a member of the Pintubi. Vanhollebeke one wrote (my emphasis):
      “Beyond that, all we are able to determine is that it is said to be a large adult 50 year old male from the Pintubi tribe…”
      This is probably based on the location where it was found, not its morphology.

      • Joe Furphy says:

        Please re-read the first paragraph of my comment. Explicitly, ‘based on the LOCATION where it was said to be found’ (stated as ‘near the lower Darling River’) the skull CANNOT be a member of the Pintubi tribe because the Pintubi live about 2000km away from the Darling River. There are about 10 different tribal territories in between.
        As I said, this is as silly as saying that ‘based on the location at which it was found’ a skull found near London belonged to a Croatian, or a skull found near New York belonged to a Texan.
        This was my point; my final sentence that you can’t tell tribal status from skull characteristics meant that even if by some very long shot, this was the skull of a Pintubi who died 2000km from home during a marathon charity run across Australia, you couldn’t tell!

  13. jewamongyou says:

    Re: Joe Furphy,
    Indeed. My apologies; I should have read your comment more carefully. Then it’s anybody’s guess as to why the skull was “said to be from a Pintubi”. It could have been a rumor based on the words of somebody who knew the individual.
    Be it as it may, the skull is certainly that of a modern Australoid – and that is the main point here.

  14. Martin says:

    We know that the hominids that are referred to as species could interbreed.
    Well that means they arent species but races.
    If other hominids had survived until today they would be called homo sapiens.
    Its all political. 200 years ago many europeans would not have considered all other humans to be “humans”. But if Homo Erectus or Neanderthals did exist today, anyone calling them a different species would be labeled a “racist”.
    The Paradox is that many species arent species at all but races.
    Its now becoming a political thing since scientists have already established that different hominids were fundamentally different. While human Races are “all the same”.
    Now it turns out those species arent species but races.

  15. A gentile among your website says:

    I live in Australia. There are many aborigines in my region and they do look like that. They are extremely unique compared to other populations.
    They have extreme facial projection and some tourists say they are like a completely different species. You can easily google images of aborigines with features at least as prominent as this skull.
    I went to an aboriginal festival a while ago and so many people look like that. I saw a girl who’s brow ridge stuck out about as far as her nose. It was unbelievable to me.

  16. bryn says:

    Thats a neanderthal skull not aboriginal

  17. prognathism says:

    It’s because Australian aborigines have Denisovan genes, with more prominent facial bones (brow ridges and jaws) making them look more “primitive”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *