Were Homo Neanderthalensis smart?

Ever heard of Nibiru? Yeah, it was those guys.

we just don't know

File: f448d6d023f36bf7183d898649ad36b7.jpg (84KB, 564x550px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 564x550px

>>1739735
would you have sex with a neanderthal qt?

Neanderthals were not stupid, but they wouldn't be able to coexist with us

Or at least not speak with us in our language

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o589CAu73UM

>>1739790
Imagine that huge mouth just vacuuming your dick.
>>1739735
Yes they were as smart are Cro Magnons but their own physiology screwed them over, we were better at using tools while they were better at making more complex tools.

>>1739790

I've had sex with uglier women already...

>>1739796
They couldnt coexist with us because they were smarter than us by a mile we were retarded savages compared to them. They also had language like us but certain letters are impossible for them to pronounce.

File: 06 Brain illustration_Peter Bull.jpg (179KB, 850x543px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 850x543px

>>1739735

No

>>1739790
>neanderthal qts looked like acromegalic Shakiras
My dick doesn't know how to feel about this.

>>1739829
>tfw he has my brow

have I never succeeded at anything because I have an inferior neanderthal brain, bros?

>>1739829
Yh they were they had synthetic adhesives invented long before us, not to mention you need to be smart to thrive in ice age Europe, they may look like apes but thats because their brain structure is different from ours, crows have small heads yet have the reasoning skills of human 7 year olds this is because the brain structure of crows is alien to us since it goes back to 286 million years ago. Neanderthals are genetically distinct from us that they are still smart yet look apish, it could also some of our more ape looking cousins like Denisova could have been smart as well.

>>1739848
Are you a slav, anon? I've only ever seen slavs sporting neanderthal brows.

>>1739848
Perhaps because you human, the sloped forehead of neanderthals have nothing to do with their intelligence.

File: valuev-holyfield_1116876i.jpg (35KB, 620x400px)

35KB, 620x400px

>>1739854
Valuev would be the best example of it.

>>1739851
A lot of words just to really say nothing.

>>1739866
You are obviousy retarded anon.

File: cromag_neand.jpg (63KB, 1200x781px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x781px

>>1739829
the proportions seem wrong, neanderthals were very long headed, more so than modern humans, with the additional brachicephalism that gave them about 150cc of additional brain mass compared to the average human
I don't doubt that the prefrontal cortex might have been smaller but the skulls aren't proportional

>>1739735
Yes

File: cute.jpg (8KB, 200x252px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x252px

Would you neaderthal loli?

>>1739829
>Same forehead as the Neanderthal
that explains a lot of things

>>1739870
That's a big skull.

>>1739881
>>>/b/

File: 1474818021773.jpg (195KB, 846x1004px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 846x1004px

>>1739861
>>1739829
really makes you think

>>1739868
I am not the one saying a bunch of ultimately empty words to cover up for the lack of a proper argument.

Oh, and punctuation. Try it sometime.

>>1739790
Looks like shakira

>>1740054
T H I C C
H
I
C
C

>>1740054
Jesus christ no wonder our ancestors went full muh dik on these creatures.

>>1739870
Is this representation proportional? Must've looked ridiculous to see some 5'5 muscular manlet with a head that overproportionally big

File: Rwlptls.jpg (112KB, 800x540px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 800x540px

>>1740152
seems so

File: 1467249054161.jpg (1MB, 5000x2805px)

1MB, 5000x2805px

>>1740054

>>1739911
HOLY SHIT!

>>1740152
they were a lot wider and more stout though

>>1740174
I should add though, the typical cro-mag on the right is quite short faced and wide skulled, while modern Euros can have fairly long faces all around, so that can perhaps be misconceiving as skull shapes in humans even from a specific group can vary quite a bit

According to Louis Cachet, the white man comes from the neanderthal.

File: homocapensis.png (195KB, 400x537px)

195KB, 400x537px

>>1739851
The homo capensis had a larger cranial capacity than us.

I think its safe to say, that werent the smartest hominids the ones that survived.

>>1740320
Boskop skulls were just poor fucks suffering from hydrocephaly

>>1740292
>Louis Cachet?
>I wonder what this man's credentials and theories are
>google
>fucking varg vikernes smiling face

fuck you, why are you faggot so into that asshole?

>>1739796
They'd be treated as abbos in Australia, who out of all human groups are the most divergent from homo sapiens. They'd be absorbed eventually.

>>1739911

I always thought the meme about this Russian dude being a Neanderthal was just a joke.

But that side profile... Holy shit. Literally like a living fossil. Is this just a coincidence? Or does he have a lot of expressed Neanderthal genes?

>>1740358
I think it's just a condition(can't remember its name) producing some features that look archaic, like the massive brow ridge.
But at the same time he has a massive chin and a short head, which aren't archaic.

>>1740292
I don't think Varg would be the first to come up with it, I guess he is perhaps following some fringe multiregionalist idea.

>>1740358
Actually you can see in the picture how his features, apart from the massive brows, are not neanderthal-like at all. Just brutish-looking.

>>1739735
Nope, but they were gays and it's why they were extinct

>>1740476

No Homo Neanderthalensis

They were literally so closeted they went extinct so 'No Homo Neanderthalensis' became a factually correct statement.

Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern humans, scientists find https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientist

File: 1464610998243.jpg (733KB, 1920x2292px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 1920x2292px

>>1740339
There are groups of people in Africa who are more genetically isolated from the rest of humanity than australian aboriginals. Abbos have been isolated for 90k-150k years, there are african cultural groups looking at more like 170k-270k years.

For a context of comparison, humans have been largely distinct from neanderthalis for 550k-650k years, and we could still breed with them to an extent.

>>1739799
Imagine her mouth, never having brushed her teeth (much less bathed) once in her entire life, rank with bits of mammoth fat and deer flesh. Neanderthals also had stronger jaws, used for chewing tough meat and (when they could find them) tubers, so I'd be wary of putting my penis in such a jaw. They are also known to have engaged in cannibalism. Whether this was a desperate/pragmatic survival thing or routine is uncertain.

Anyway, they certainly possessed a degree of intelligence. Much smarter than chimps. They could learn and pass on tool-making, and probably had rudimentary language. But I recall reading that one of the reasons for their extinction is that they just weren't fast-learners, and got outpaced by both climate change and humans (they were already in slow decline when humans showed up). They were not very social creatures, certainly not compared to humans. They lived in smallish family groups, but never (so far as we can tell) larger groups of multiple unrelated individuals as humans do. This would most certainly have been a 'chicken-or-the-egg' scenario limiting their overall potential.

>>1740547
Neanderthals are smarter than humans they couldnt adapt due to mechanical physiological reasons not intelligence reasons. They were built for the ice age so the warming of Europe would eventualy kill them.

>>1740547
>Imagine her mouth, never having brushed her teeth (much less bathed)
>le stupid caveman never bathed or washed their mouths may may
You have to be 18 to post here kiddo.

File: 1470154675376.gif (476KB, 188x174px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 188x174px

>>1740054

>>1739807
>they were smarter than us by a mile we were retarded savages compared to them.

No they weren't.

>>1740622
Yes they were as they developed in ice age Europe while we developed in Africa so obviously we were morons compared to them.

>>1740577
>Neanderthals are smarter than humans
First of all, 'were'. But even that statement I would be cautious about making. Smarter how? They were good tool-makers, and were better with textiles (sewing and weaving) than contemporary humans, but they were specialized to fairly stable conditions, and showed little skill with rapid innovation (a human speciality)

Evidence seems pretty clear that neanderthals didn't live in large groups (male-led family groups), and towards the end were suffering from shallow gene pools (i.e. a thinly-spread population). They certainly weren't stupid, but overall, humans were quicker and more adaptable.

>>1740600
Neanderthals are not cavemen, doofus.

There is evidence of the possible use of toothpicks, but you can try an experiment yourself. Simply don't brush your teeth, ever, for a year, only using a toothpick once every couple days. You may avoid some cavities (depends on your diet, as prehistoric people almost never ate sugar, which is tooth enemy #1). But your breath will be pretty rank. I guess neanderthals just didn't care, as they probably didn't kiss. They certainly groomed themselves from time to time, but again that does little against smell.

>>1740683
>>>/x/
What's that cherrypicked photo trying to show?
>believing in physiognomy
>2016

>>1740694
t. someone who doesn't know what physiognomy is

>>1740703
t. someone who has nothing of value to add in this thread but pseudo-scientific myths.

File: 1474282339005.png (108KB, 326x307px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 326x307px

>>1740722
>acknowledging people of sub Saharan African descent tend to have a certain skull and facial structure is pseudoscience
sod off

>>1740683
It means blacks are living fossils.

>>1740743
>pretending that it's somehow meaningful

Fucking pathetic back-peddling. If you're going to write "Africans ... have the most primitive skull shape the lowest brain capacity and the lowest IQ someone explain", at least have the balls to stick to your position.

This is /his/, take your garbage to /pol/ or /x/ or whatever.

>>1740787
Neanders are not human so human measurements have no meaning to them so they can have apish skulls and it doesnt mean anything, but blacks are human and by human measurements its means that blacks have defective frontal lobes.

File: mice_and_men.jpg (135KB, 640x952px)

135KB, 640x952px

>>1740793
Would you like to pet the rabbits now?

>>1740722
No; I'm simply saying you have no idea what physiognomy is.

Noting the difference between race skull shape and size is NOT physiognomy.

>>1740808
>being literally this autistic
OK, here: Racial craniometry, phrenology and other scientific racism measuring techniques are also junk "science".

File: Homo_erectus_new.jpg (183KB, 544x680px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 544x680px

People should talk about Homo Erectus more I think. They were around much longer, cooking over a fire started with them, and they're much more interesting overall yet no one ever talks about them.

>>1740829
>junk science
But if so why are they true? It is very obvious that blacks have defective frontal lobes because they do act like lobotimized people.

File: cranial capacity.png (46KB, 618x272px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 618x272px

>>1740829

>junk "science"

Nope

>>1739892
For you

>>1740054
nice

>>1739799
>we were better at using tools while they were better at making more complex tools.

UM Wut more info pls

>>1740852
They aren't, moron.

>>1740901
>BUT LOOK, NUMBERS ALWAYS MEAN SOMETHING!!
You haven't proven anything. And protip: you can't, and frankly /his/ isn't the place to disprove your cretin-tier pseudo-scientific junk theories.

>>1740054
I must remind you that this is a SFW board

>>1741139
Yes they are, listen fucktard there is this called the AVERAGE BLACK HUMAN, yes not all blacks act like psychotic children but 90% of them do.

>>1739735
Homo :DDD

>>1740850

I think 4chan has a boner for neanderthals because they were so similar to us. Much more relatable than homo erectus.

On a side note, how far back would you have to go before hominid women wouldn't find you attractive?

I imagine that if I were to meet a homo erectus woman I'd look like a neonatal alien in comparison to most men she'd seen.

>>1741269
>On a side note, how far back would you have to go before hominid women wouldn't find you attractive?

Up to some crucial bottleneck phase perhaps?

Anyway, it's interdasting to think how naturally a person would relate into his/her mother. Maybe a grandmother, yes? And grand-grand-etc. mother? And yet, we slowly slide into Homo Erectus with whom we could have trouble relating with.

Fast forwarding into early primates, mammals, etc. Our relatives.

>>1741363

The odd part is that we can relate to domesticated animals much better than we can our close relatives. I find apes to be alien and terrifying, and I think I'd react to many early hominids the same way. A dog, on the other hand? Easily relatable.

File: main-qimg-709cf2311c460c3dbd8c47b5f74d3f35.png (108KB, 380x445px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 380x445px

>>1741371

Maybe something with apes fail to trigger the nurturing instincts unlike some other mammals.

>>1741371

could it be that the tendency to dehumanise others we dont like is a instinctive remainder from a time humans still lived next to other hominids?

>>1739870
>long headed
>braciphalic

You're not very smart, are you?

File: 1474738326411.jpg (2MB, 2560x2489px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x2489px

>>1741269
>I'd look like a neonatal alien in comparison to most men she'd seen.
>mfw that describes my current relation to Homo sapien women in the year 2016 perfectly

>>1741371
That's called the Uncanny Valley, or the original German concept "unheimlichkeit". (First fleshed out by Freud, which is one of his concepts that isn't considered junk today.)

Things which are familiar, yet somehow 'off' and unusual, cause a cognitive dissonance, and tend to lead to rejection of that thing, rather than rationalization (and acceptance).

With apes and hominids, we can clearly see ourselves/our origins. Thus it is a bit freaky. It's the same reason most people don't like robots which look too 'human', and why aliens and horror movie monsters are usually humanoid. It's just scarier that way.

>>1741417
>>1741371
>>1741426

It's known as "uncanny valley", humans react negatively to things that are humanlike but not human.

>>1739790
>those lips
imagine da succ

>>1740685
Uhm premodern humans have much better teeth. starches are hell on teeth. They literally know which people were "poor" and who was "rich" in some ancient burial grounds because poor people couldnt afford grain so they had good teeth, rich people had awful teeth

>>1740508
Doesn't take much to beat modern humans at intelligence, our advanced are accomplished by 1% freaks of humanity who surpass normal intelligence. There are many animals that are smarter than that bitch Kelly down the road.

>>1740371
Hey fuck you. We asians dont have a chin.

Are we archaic? But we dont have brow ridges unlike white ppl so i guess were ok

>>1740292
Asians, American Indian/regular Indians and caucasians share a lot of neanderthal DNA but blacks have non.

>>1740850
The aborigines of Australia literally have no structural difference between homo erectus but people wont acknowledge them as being the last remaining homo erectus.

File: b52caf396a0950f9ffc0aa66a6cd18ed.jpg (37KB, 522x650px)

37KB, 522x650px

They were just regular people with odd features that the evolutionists turned into hunched over ape-men to fit their twisted theory.

>>1742034
That's bullshit but I believe it

>>1742041
It aint bull. It's in my anthropology textbook. Right next to a picture of an aboriginal with a walk-e talk-e and he's smiling the caption reads "But they're clearly modern"

Or something like that.

>>1742056
I googled all I find are a bunch of stormnigger blogs provide proofs

>>1742056
>It's in my anthropology textbook.
Is it mein kampf?

File: amh-neandertal-skulls.jpg (351KB, 1048x1109px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1048x1109px

Here's a neanderthal and skhul humanoid (unknown taxonomy)...

>>1742060
http://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2007/05/15/are-aboriginal-australians-and-new-guineans-the-modern-day-descendants-of-the-extinct-species-homo-erectus/

There's tons more just adjust your search criteria. I would take a picture of my text book but I took that class in 2011 and the book is at my parents place. It's pretty funny though. I think we're in denial about physiological differences. I think people are afraid if we acknowledge that we're different we'll kill each other more.

File: images (7).jpg (6KB, 216x192px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 216x192px

>>1742084
...and here's an abo skull.

>>1742087
I'm still skeptical abos are dumb but no way are they Homo Erectus dumb

>>1742095
It's just multiregionalist garbage. Don't bother with it.

>>1742112
>>1742095
Homo erectus probably wasn't super dumb. Just hand axe with a spear and probably wooden tools dumb. Doesn't sound too different to abos.

>>1741426
Maybe. Would make sense.

Although I believe we could breed with other humanoids.

>>1742095
Abos are tards anon thats why they failed to develop anything compared to the Maori in New Zealand.

File: 1455310328315.gif (246KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 320x240px

>>1739801
UNDERRATED POST top kek

>>1741485
I meant that in addition to a long head their skull was also fairly wide and it wasn't narrow, so the overall capacity was pretty big.

>>1739790
Did she can sing?

>>1739735

Cranial capacity correlates at an individual level with intelligence (around 0.35).

They had big brains.

So probably yes.

Unless for some strange reason their brain physiology didn't follow this correlation.

>>1740054
I wish I had 5 minutes alone with those tw Loli and mature plastic neardentals...

>>1743084
Neanderthals had hyoid bones, so they were thus capable of and likely did speak. Interbreeding with humans and various hybrids over generations would suggest the offspring could speak, too.

But thanks to a compressed neck they probably sounded very odd to us, being high-pitched, but with big barrel chests, also probably resonant and booming. Think of air being let out of a balloon, or the way some dwarves sound, and you're on the right track.

>>1743107

You forgot about the foxp2 gene, which makes you case even stronger.

>>1743107
>neanderthals were actually the prehistoric dwarves, being short and potbellied
inb4 homo erectus found to be expert bowmen and cave paintings found of a ring

>>1741740
>>1741722

Never thought of this.

>>1741269
People of vastly different interbreed like clockwork on meeting, and some species of animal interbreed with such regularity that the hybrid offspring occur as a recognized "variant" (especially in birds). Hell, even animals of entirely different species will go for it.

A dude had sex with a dolphin, who came onto him, no less. If they don't consider men to be strange hairy miniature landwhales, at least enough to still fuck, I think you're safe betting that you'd score at least some proto-sapien poon.

Now the real question: how far back would you have to go for us modern humans not to find our ancestors attractive at all? I know some races have some Homo erectus admixture, but I personally haven't seen a reconstruction of a half-decent looking female of the species.

>>1742134

I saw a documentary once where it was claimed that the early tool-using hominids were doing it as intelligently as birds creating their nests.

>>1742087
>http://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2007/05/15/are-aboriginal-australians-and-new-guineans-the-modern-day-descendants-of-the-extinct-species-homo-erectus/

>The results suggest that the Australian aboriginals are descendants of the same emigrant group that left Africa 50,000 to 70,000 years ago and populated Europe and Asia. At least from the small number of samples analyzed for this study, there does not seem to be any DNA contribution from Homo erectus.

>The uniformity of the sequences suggests that once humans migrated into the region there was little other gene flow. This might explain why the Australian and New Guinean populations share phenotypic features that are unique to the region.

Read your own sources.
You people are fucking retarded.

>>1743207

The issue is the uncanny valley, I would think.

However, this is mostly an issue when it comes to facial morphology. Even today, men will gladly have sex with a woman with a less than attractive face if she has a nice body.

So the real question is: how far back do you have to go before women don't have anatomically modern secondary sexual characteristics like nice breasts or buttocks?

>>1740371
acromegaly maybe

i dont feel like checking

File: female-australopithecus-africanus-mauricio-anton.jpg (48KB, 500x700px)

48KB, 500x700px

>>1743722

I don't know how accurate this drawing of Australopithecus Africanus is.

A. Afarensis (Lucy) might be too far.

Personally I'd settle somewhere between Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal at most.

http://paleoanthropologicalartofpetry.blogspot.fi/2014/06/homo-heidelbergensis.html

>>1742039
Fuck off Varg.

>>1744127

>Hundreds of thousands of years of sexual selection means that average man today has a dick bigger than the vast majority of archaic hominid men did
>Being above average would make you a fertility god in comparison


I want to go back in time and find an archaic q.t. 3.14 reeee

>>1744585
Would archaic women even find big dicks attractive

>>1739790
No but im sure my ancestor did purely to remove her race from the pool.

>>1744606

The human penis is much larger than other primates' due to sexual selection.

So either:

A) Large dicks have some innate reproductive benefit when it comes to inseminating women

Or

B) Women prefer bigger dicks and choose to have sex with men who have them

If it's B, then yes.

>>1744624

Isn't the evolutionary goal of a larger penis/glans to create a better vacuum and suck out the competitor's sperm?

>>1739735

The flat head always brings forth feelings of uneasiness.

>>1744624
Its bigger because humans walk, in the trees big fat dicks will drag on the branchs so they have to be nice and tiny and manageable for primates, but once the primates arent in the trees the dick can get longer and fatter without getting in the way of the primate's mobility.

>>1740743
>implying every single Sub-Saharan looks like that

Easy Africans (Nilotics, not the mixed race Horners), Khoisan, and a decent amount of West Africans (Fula) don't look like that.

>>1740793
Neanderthals are human you immense fucking retard, they just aren't our species of human. Just like how Homo habilis was human too, despite actually looking like a chimp-human hybrid.

>>1740850
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16archeo.html

http://www.livescience.com/48991-homo-erectus-shell-tools.html

They were smarter than you think.

>>1741269
I'm pretty sure than even Paranthropus bosei or Australopithecus afrarensis would be as interested in humans as orangutans are.

In other words, RUN

>>1742017
I've seen Asians with large brow ridges (all Chinese) and they look like the Asian Homo erectus from that one Planet of the Ape-Men special.

>>1742084
Skul was Homo sapiens idaltu, a robust and physically "primitive" race of humans.

>>1742088
>forehead
>slight chin

Sapiens.

>>1743126
I'm sorry anon, but we are the elves. Unless there's a baby faces species that's taller that went extinct. Idaltu fits the role as "human" because we look almost the same, but we're less masculine.

File: 1382595900586.jpg (207KB, 1022x825px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1022x825px

>>1740850
JOHJ?

>>1744708
What the fuck...

>>1742056
Considering Austrlians/Papuans cluster in the general homo sapiens geentic cluster what you're saying is bullshit

Also considering that other homo sapiens and abbos can have sex and give birth to fertile offspring

>>1744708
Yeah, the bottom curved area of the glans is supposed to scoop other men's sperm out of the vagina.

And also larger glans in general are better at stimulating women's G spots.

>>1740685
>little skill with rapid innovation (a human speciality)
Can we even measure that the neanderthals were slower learners? Some cultures made huge steps in innovation and then stood still, only do decline and fall back, some didn't innovate shit for thousands of years.

>Evidence seems pretty clear that neanderthals didn't live in large groups (male-led family groups), and towards the end were suffering from shallow gene pools (i.e. a thinly-spread population). They certainly weren't stupid, but overall, humans were quicker and more adaptable.
I think the fact that the homo sapiens is able to be more social is the key here, not that he's more or less intelligent (in the sense of rationality). Men fcan unction in both small, big, and even huge fucking groups. And that's the key. Being able to develop and "fit into" a big range of different forms of organization, and adapt them according to changes.

>>1740743
I think there was a finding, that the descendants of european settlers in america tended to have on average a shorter skull than their counterparts in europe. Phrenology was abandoned because it was practically impossible to come to conclusions about intelligence, character, and even race, because the boundaries are too fluid.

Still, I know what you mean, the average black you see here on the streets has often typical features that we attribute to them.

>>1741229
Isn't the warrior gene variant only in 5%

>>1740152
anime

>>1740685
>But your breath will be pretty rank
Herbalism.

Wild mint and pre-mint herbs had to be cultivated at some time.
>>1742095
Australian abos make NA abos look like spacemen, and that's talking about them now versus NA abos a few hundred years ago.

NA abos developed complex languages, for example. Some complex architecture.

>>1741037
>UM Wut more info pls

Unfortunately there is no more info because dude apparently likes to make things up. Might be a neanderthal himself. NIDF!

>SHUT IT DOWN THE SAPIENS KNOW

>>1744127
She could probably rip your dick off like it was an apple stem. Apes are fucking strong, mang.

>>1746878
True enough. Neanderthals were only ever accustomed to smallish groups, or so it seems.

>>1746732
evolutionary psychology for ya;
>The penis being shaped like that means it helps with reproduction. Hmmm;
>Let's combine that with the theory that early humans were into massive orgies and had group sex all the time because bonobos(even though chimpanzees and bonobos have the same dicks). Ergo, dicks look like that to scoop everyone's sloppy seconds out of her vagina.
Also, female orgasm is a call to get herself gangbanged.

>>1747385
It's far more common along Chinese descent people.

Is it possible neanderthals could have survived into the ancient age? I read something about them existing in the remote of the West of Ireland for quite some time.

No.

Source: The Clan of the Cavebear.

File: sweating.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>1740054
Those tits tho

>>1739735
Probably lower average. They weren't retarded, humans just outclassed them.

>>1739861
I would not be shocked if the euros with bony ass brows had Neanderthal in them.

>>1741867
Humans just have a higher capacity for obsessiveness, I guess.

>>1746893
Without going into pseudoscience shit, why do certain ethnic groups have different skull shapes?

File: ken-ham.jpg (14KB, 300x300px)

14KB, 300x300px

>>1744222
Ham actually.

File: xD8nhx.png (313KB, 1100x354px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 1100x354px

>>1748041
I think it has something to do with heat distribution, hybridization with neanders/denisos, or those who last longer just happen to have those traits.

>>1739735
The smarter among them were probably smarter than those of us with average intelligence.

>>1748041
adaptation I guess, although even among a certain "race" you can have big variation, like with strongly dolicocephalic types like atlanto-meds living alongside brachicephalic Alpines in Europe

>>1748279
The African native looks really happy compared to the other skulls, and the Aborigine looks disturbing.

>>1745867
Khois are not niggers, and the East Africans are another undocumented race that is closely related to the niggers but for some reason people still call them niggers.

>>1739861

You see Vasily, his forehead is sloped like t-34 tank to deflect decadent western punches

This board isn't /prehis/, monkeys gtfo

>>1748417
Then who are the "niggers"? West Africans? Bantus from Central Africa? Pygmies? Those unrelated hunter gatherer groups that speak a click language like the Khoisan but don't look like them? The now multiracial population in Madagascar? Another thing to note is that East Africans don't all look the same or belong to this undescribed race you're talking about, they aren't all in Ethiopia, Kenyans are East Africans too.

You aren't one of those Somali posters who shitpost about other Africans are you?