PDA

View Full Version : The Little People of Africa



Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, December 19th, 2004, 03:41 AM
Without using words which are not yet defined, in equitorial Africa and all over tropical Asia, and even in Australia there are or were people of greatly reduced stature living in isolated pockets in what look like racial islands, having been swept aside by a new influx of people. In Africa and Australia, they seem to be associated with old growth forests but in Asia there are found in forests as well as on islands. Coon does a miserable job in explaining if these people are interconnected or not. He does a miserable job in explaining how they got that way. Now we have Flores man who was very short adding a new dimension to this picture.

What has happened here? Are these people somehow related? What really causes reduction in human size?

morfrain_encilgar
Sunday, December 19th, 2004, 07:52 AM
The floresiensis isnt modern and is probably an island dwarf descended from large erectus. Modern pygmies on different continents are unrelated, and associated with a tropical forest habitat. The distribution of African pygmies actually seems to match the history of forest distribution in Africa, which would suggest that theyve been in the forests for a long time unless they entered their habitat more recently, and independently which mignt have been to avoid competition or aggression from Negroids.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 06:10 AM
Modern pygmies on different continents are unrelated
I think they are related; they (and also the Bushmen of southern Africa) share many features in common including frizzy hair, brachycephaly and a somewhat Mongoloid-looking facial appearance.

The differences between those of various continents is, I believe, derived from mixture with surrounding races. For instance, it is clear that the Congo Pygmies are partially Negro, while those of Australia tend to bear some resemblance to other Australian Aborigines.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 06:50 AM
I think they are related; they (and also the Bushmen of southern Africa) share many features in common including frizzy hair, brachycephaly and a somewhat Mongoloid-looking facial appearance.

The Bambutids are brachycephalic but they certainly dont look Mongoloid, and the Capoids are dolichocephalic, with pepercorn hair like the Negritids.


The differences between those of various continents is, I believe, derived from mixture with surrounding races. For instance, it is clear that the Congo Pygmies are partially Negro, while those of Australia tend to bear some resemblance to other Australian Aborigines.

I feel its easier to interpret the origins of pygmy-sized populations as regional adaptations, though the Bambutid and Negritid types seem to have found refuges from the later Bantu and Malayid expansions, in the forest.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 01:56 PM
The Bambutids are brachycephalic but they certainly dont look Mongoloid, and the Capoids are dolichocephalic, with pepercorn hair like the Negritids.The Bushmen (or San) are broad-headed but the Hottentots (Khoikhoin) are longer-headed according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"The Khoikhoin are not easily distinguishable physically from the San, or Bushmen--the Khoikhoin's slightly taller stature and decidedly longer and narrower head being the only marked differences."

Elsewhere I have read that the Hottentots have more Negro mixture.

Many anthropologists think that most of Africa was originally inhabited by people of a type like the Bushmen (and largely ancestral to the pygmies).
I have also noticed that Africans with a Bushman-like facial appearance tend to be more broad-headed than the usual Negros.


I feel its easier to interpret the origins of pygmy-sized populations as regional adaptations, though the Bambutid and Negritid types seem to have found refuges from the later Bantu and Malayid expansions, in the forest.But an interesting thing is that while most Australian Aborigines are not usually extremely curly-haired, the pygmies of north-east Queensland tend to have frizzy hair; in fact, frizzy hair seems to be a general feature of pygmies, and of course, of the short-statured Bushmen.

Agrippa
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 03:52 PM
But an interesting thing is that while most Australian Aborigines are not usually extremely curly-haired, the pygmies of north-east Queensland tend to have frizzy hair; in fact, frizzy hair seems to be a general feature of pygmies, and of course, of the short-statured Bushmen.

If you look at the Tasmanids or Melanesids they have most of the time frizzy hair too, I think there were just different waves of immigration in Australia in different kinds of adaptation.

Like Atlanto said its most probably that they developed the Pygmoid features in a refuge-area after getting forced their by other Australoid populations.

But it is also possible, though I dont know too much about the Australian "small people", that there is some kind of Negritid influence from SE Asia...

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, December 21st, 2004, 10:07 PM
The Bushmen (or San) are broad-headed but the Hottentots (Khoikhoin) are longer-headed according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"The Khoikhoin are not easily distinguishable physically from the San, or Bushmen--the Khoikhoin's slightly taller stature and decidedly longer and narrower head being the only marked differences."

Elsewhere I have read that the Hottentots have more Negro mixture.

I dont know about if the Sanid are wider headed than the Hottentots, but theyre dolichocephalic.


Many anthropologists think that most of Africa was originally inhabited by people of a type like the Bushmen (and largely ancestral to the pygmies).
I have also noticed that Africans with a Bushman-like facial appearance tend to be more broad-headed than the usual Negros.

Capoids would have had a wider range previously, and they still can be found in East Africa. But Africa before the Bantu expansion does seem to have been inhabited by different types as well as the ancestors of Bushmen and the forest pygmies.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2004, 01:05 PM
If you look at the Tasmanids or Melanesids they have most of the time frizzy hair too, I think there were just different waves of immigration in Australia in different kinds of adaptation.
Frizzy hair is also a feature of Negroids, who are dominant in Melanesia, and it appears that Aborigines have some Negroid influence, which was stronger in Tasmania; but the pygmies of Queensland are more like Negritos, as you suggested.


Like Atlanto said its most probably that they developed the Pygmoid features in a refuge-area after getting forced their by other Australoid populations.
I think it's more likely that there was a short-statured, brachycephalic and frizzy-haired race (as well as the other features) extending from Africa to southern Asia and that due to their smallness, they tended to have trouble (because of larger enemies) thriving anywhere other in than forests and regions which were rather undesirable to most people.


I dont know about if the Sanid are wider headed than the Hottentots, but theyre dolichocephalic.
According to Brittanica they are "broad-headed" by which I assume they mean brachycephalic; I think I've also read elsewhere that they are brachycephalic (or at least mesocephalic) but I'll have to check up on it again.


Capoids would have had a wider range previously, and they still can be found in East Africa. But Africa before the Bantu expansion does seem to have been inhabited by different types as well as the ancestors of Bushmen and the forest pygmies.
From what I've seen of Sub-Saharan Africans, it seems to me that they are one of the most homogeneous groups, with only Negro, the Bushman (or Pygmy) type and perhaps another, thickset racial type as an element in West Africa.
So maybe the other types have been swamped by these two or three, so that their influence has been greatly thinned out and therefore not really visible in modern Africans.