Posts Tagged ‘Morocco’

Morocco Sapiens 315,000 Old, Generalizing Humanity

June 8, 2017

Entangled With Neanderthals?

Fossils have been discovered in Morocco. Archaeologists unearthed the bones of at least five people at Jebel Irhoud, a former barite mine 100km west of Marrakesh, in excavations that lasted more than 50 years (notice that this is not far from the Atlantic Ocean). A team led by Jean-Jacques Hublin published their finds in the journal Nature.

They reported the oldest known remains of Homo sapiens. Anywhere. This suggests that Sapiens Sapiens evolved all across the African continent, not just East Africa (somewhat similar fossils were found in South Africa, 260,000 year old). Remarkably, those 315 K old early Homo Sapiens had faces much like our own. They would not have been noticed in the subway. Their faces were more modern than their skulls!


Neanderthals Colonized North Africa For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Years. Why Not Reciprocally?

Thus, we did not evolve from a single ‘cradle of mankind’ somewhere in East Africa, contrarily to Charles Darwin’s statement claiming this. Darwin had no proof of what he said, yet he was followed like the sheep follows the shepherd (0nce more demonstrating the sheep love to follow sheep effect scientists are prone to). On the face of it, it’s perfectly ridiculous to claim there was something magical and sacred about East Africa (except for long distance running, and Morocco has also very good long distance runners… for basically the same evolutionary reason: excellent places to run down animals at high altitude… and getting genetically adapted that way)

We evolved all across the African continent. But not just this: the Gibraltar strait is only 14 kilometers wide, presently and it was less than half that wide during the many great glaciations of the last few million years. At that point, the strait was less than 5 kilometers across. It was easy to cross. And crossed by humans it was.

300,000 years ago, Neanderthals just appeared, and both them and the new Sapiens fossils found in Morocco could go back and forth across the strait.

Neanderthals came across, to Africa, from Europe: there are more genetic Neanderthal markers in North Africa than anywhere else. Now Neanderthals came later, while North Africa had, presumably, descendants of the recently found fossil of Sapiens. This proves an inequality:

Homo Neanderthalis > Archaic Homo Sapiens. Neanderthals are considered a sister group that lived alongside, and, particularly in Morocco,  even bred with, our modern human ancestors.

If Neanderthals could go to Africa, no doubt Africans could go the other way, to Eurasia. So why didn’t they? Were Homo Sapiens from Africa that inferior? Well, sort of.

This apparently unidirectional exchange (Europe TO Africa), for hundreds of thousands of years, shows that the Neanderthal type was more adapted to Eurasia and its conditions at the time, considering the technology available (this my thesis that Neanderthals were ice adapted Sapiens, tech dependent).



This major discovery in prehistory didn’t surprise me at all: advanced, 300,000 year old Homo Sapiens were discovered in Morocco. (North Africa is genetically mostly European, contrarily to what the locals fancy!)

Homo Sapiens is the metaphysical animal, going beyond the physics of nature to invent its own. What does not kill us makes us stronger, and more clever. More clever genetically, and culturally.

Thus it should not be surprising that the most sophisticated cultural-genetic versions of Homo appeared in the most demanding climates. Thinking otherwise may be PC, but not smart.

315,000 years old Sapiens skulls from Morocco.

This is what Jared Diamond did not want to understand, when he tried to claim in “Guns, Germs and Steel” that European superiority was just happenstance. Diamond said Europe had the best animals and the best plants: true enough. But he did not realize that was all from human bioengineering (much of it from the Fertile Crescent, 10,000 years ago, or more…)  

There were three most advanced civilization centers: Europe and Middle Earth, China and Mesoamerica. They have a temperate climates in common (in Mexico from high altitude). This is not accidental. It comes from having higher, more profitable sociocultural-evolutionary pressure there: basically ferocious progress was more possible there, from ease of communications, over vast human communities, and better rewarded.

These same forces have long been at work. Neanderthals had to achieve great superiority, just to survive. That’s probably why some of their genetic variations ended up all over North Africa, and all the way to South Africa.


Why The Great Steppe Was Different And Conflictual With Europe and China:

Races long behaved differently for excellent reasons, tied to geography: the Mongols (Huns, etc.) terrorized the Chinese  for 40 centuries, because living in Mongolia made people tougher, more war like. 20 centuries ago, a Chinese army of 140,000 elite soldiers penetrated Mongolia over 1,000 kilometers, in a search and destroy mission. It was successful: the Huns fled west defeated their blondish cousin the half-bred Alani, further west, mixed with them and then defeated the giant Gothic empire. The Goths begged Roman emperor Valens’ administration to shelter them in the Imperium Romanorum. That turned into the proximal cause of the Fall of Rome.

I am not trying to be sneaky anti-Mongol here, calling them for the barbarians they were. The Mongols reached from Toulouse, France, all the way to Japan and Indonesia (and I have at least one Mongol genetic marker!)

Before I return to prehistoric man, let me point out that only 30,000 elite Chinese soldiers, from the expedition I evoked, came back to civilization…


Out Of Africa And Out Of Eurasia:

For many decades there was a debate between the Out-Of -Africa theory and theories that Homo evolved in Africa AND Eurasia. To enforce the Out-Of-Africa theory, it was long argued Homo always evolved the most in East Africa. The Moroccan fossils shoot that down. Moroeover, modern North Africa are genetically Europeans, demonstrating the entanglement of Eurasia and Africa there. Having found nearly modern looking Homo Sapiens in North Africa shows that Neanderthals and Denisovans were indeed cold climes adapted versions, not inferior in any way.


What to think of all of this? The Notion of Humanity Needs Enlarging!

For hundreds of thousands of years, all sorts of human species cohabitated on Earth. Some were hobbits (Homo Florensis), some were tall Homo Erectus, both two million years behind in leading cerebral evolutionary, others were sophisticated Eurasians (Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis, Homo Sapiens Denisovianis), etc.

These humans who lived between 50,000-300,000 years ago, or even up to two million years ago, are a morphologically diverse bunch. The ones living in cold climes (like Homo Ergaster in Georgia ) were obviously using technology. Whenever we find more than a couple of them from Morocco, Ethiopia or Israel, their morphology is all over the place both within and between samples. And we also know this for their genetics, also all over the place.

This implies that the notion of humanity needs to be broadened.

The present humanity is the fruit of an evolutionary process where many different species were mixed. Pieces of various genetics interacted, competed, eliminated each other. We have some genetics which may look Sapiens Sapiens, but may actually have evolved from Neanderthal ancestors reverting to deeper Homo Sapiens features their ancestors used to have.

In any case, we are clearly in a situation where the out of East Africa is itself out: all of Africa evolved Sapiens, and those Sapiens themselves were entangled with Neanderthals and Denisovans (and even more so on the side of the Nile and the Sinai, where we know Sapiens and Neanderthals mixed for dozens of thousands of years).  

We have a very entangled past. Yet, much of that evolution depended, naturally enough, upon where it happened. That, in turn, often depended upon what we wanted. Human groups had different abilities, mixing them enables to select better ones (that’s the exact opposite of what the Nazis thought, by the way). The strange relations between human groups in North Africa and Europe is not just history, it’s all about what, and how some capabilities of humanity are superior to others (and those are technology dependent). Superiority itself can lead to extinction, at least so did I suggest. (This sort of observation is a warning, looking forward! We can’t just be “superior”, hoping thus not to get extinct!… As all Jihadists will telly you…)

Depending upon where we went we evolved into different versions of who we are… The archeology of Morocco makes this obvious.

Patrice Ayme’

Walls Of Common Lies

August 21, 2014

The legitimate kings were Henry V and Henry VI, kings of England and France, Paris and London. The contender a teenager was promoting was both illegitimate, and a public enemy. Such is the true history of Joan of Arc. Don’t expect one French out of a hundred to suspect it, six centuries later. Too happy, or so it seems, to have enjoyed another four centuries of war between Paris and London.

It is so easy to slip into propaganda, when brandishing history. Let me illustrate this further.

Century of Disaster Riddles, Lies, and Lives — from Fidel Castro and Muhammad Ali to Albert Einstein and Barbie By Eduardo Galeano

[The following passage is excerpted from Eduardo Galeano’s history of humanity, Mirrors.] In an aphorism Galeano imbues some “walls” with malfeasance, while insinuating that the Iron Curtain was not such a terrible thing. He vastly underestimates the unjustifiable length and lethality of the Soviets’ fascist contraption (by orders of magnitude). To trick us Galeano confuses the “Iron Curtain” (thousands of kilometers long) and the “Berlin Wall” (part of the preceding, but just inside a particular city).

The Almoravide Empire Justifies Several Contemporary Walls

The Almoravide Empire Justifies Several Contemporary Walls

Here is Galeano:


“The Berlin Wall made the news every day. From morning till night we read, saw, heard: the Wall of Shame, the Wall of Infamy, the Iron Curtain…

In the end, a wall which deserved to fall fell. But other walls sprouted and continue sprouting across the world. Though they are much larger than the one in Berlin, we rarely hear of them.

Little is said about the wall the United States is building along the Mexican border, and less is said about the barbed-wire barriers surrounding the Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the African coast.

Practically nothing is said about the West Bank Wall, which perpetuates the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and will be 15 times longer than the Berlin Wall. And nothing, nothing at all, is said about the Morocco Wall, which perpetuates the seizure of the Saharan homeland by the kingdom of Morocco, and is 60 times the length of the Berlin Wall.

Why are some walls so loud and others mute?”

The answer is simple: different walls, different situations. The Berlin Wall was a thundering lie, for all to hear. Other walls can reveal very loud truths, whom nobody in position of intellectual domination wants others to hear.

Why, for example, if Europe is such an horrendous colonialist, and America such a terrible imperialist, are the multitude so keen to shred themselves upon rows after rows of ten meter high razor blades fences as in Ceuta and Melilla? We need truths to explain those facts. Why Africans such lemmings throwing themselves across the sea towards the land of their oppressors and enslavers? Why so suicidal?

To each offense, a defense. Tied up together by causality, offenses and defense are, nevertheless, exact opposites. Somebody’s unjust aggression is someone else’s just war.

I have never heard of Eduardo Galeano before Paul Handover and “Tomdispatch”. I will try to get his book, I love different perspectives, challenges, and, especially, questions I can answer.

Writing about history is a heavy fate. It’s indeed easy to slip into commonality, Common Wisdom, that is, most often, propaganda. Unknowingly.

For example, Galeano implies that Alan Turing committed suicide because of the victimization he was submitted to, as a homosexual. Sounds good on the surface, and it is Conventional Wisdom (so Galeano repeats it, like a good, book selling parrot).

However, a more refined knowledge of what really happened reveals that Turing’s death was probably an accident that befell the already-at-the-time hyper famous Alan Turing, MBE, Member of the British Empire. Verily, Turing had left well behind his condemnation for unwise relations with someone all too young in his employ, whom Turing had imprudently accused of theft.

Some will say: “Why are you so vindictive about the innocent lemmings who love to allege that Turing was forced into suicide, for his homosexuality? Is not that a pretty tale? Does not that help homosexuals? Even if it’s false? Can’t you leave pretty tales alone? What do you have against homosexuals and Joan of Arc?”

Well, truth is my religion. From history, lessons are to be drawn. Correct ones are best. Incorrect ones, and deliberately so, criminal.

I partly draw my uncommon morality from meta-history (that’s the history of the systems of thought that made history).

First, if Turing died accidentally, there is a moral to it: accidents happen. Turing had long played with dangerous chemistry. Since childhood. he went one game with cyanide too far.

Second: whereas Turing was legally harassed for homosexuality, it’s important to realize that, at the time, that was not perceived as an intolerable injustice (even by Turing himself!). There is a higher, meta-lesson in this: the intolerable can look sufferable.

Parrot, repeating history, often engage in Thought Crime. TC: Though Crime, or Terrible Catastrophe.

Recently, some important guy from Hamas was saying something about Jewish children being bathed in blood (an old lie from Middle-Age Christian fascism). Common leftists and other vulgar intellectuals did not protest… Another Thought Crime.

I was listening the other day to a very educated French teacher, a biologist, telling a swarm of little French children, aged five to nine, the beautiful history of the victimization of Joan of Arc. Except that, as taught in France for the last 200 years, it’s sheer propaganda.

The bad “Anglais” were actually themselves French… The would-be French king, later Charles VII… was not the legitimate French King, and thus he was not keen to be sacred king…  The Queen of Four Kingdoms manipulated Joan and Charles behind the scene, fatally opposing the legitimate kings, Henry V and Henry VI, kings of England and France, Paris and London.

Thus history is not joke, and nationalistic pitfalls, let alone plutocratic ones, everywhere.

Telling false history to little children teaches hatred.

I do view my activities as those of a historian, because I interpret history. I take some facts that are generally ignored, and point out that they demolish Conventional Wisdom, or the Politically Correct, let alone their vicious embrace. (Nietzsche did nothing different, and most philosophers have, indeed, re-interpreted history. Some of these reinterpretations have become Common Wisdom.)

Yet, I try to exert maximum honesty: when I say something, however controversial, it’s backed up, by serious logic and facts, to the best of my knowledge.

And I avoid historical salad: putting together obviously unrelated things, as if there was a logic to it.

Interrogating all these walls, as Eduardo does, is an excellent question. Yet there is an obviously huge difference between walls that keep people in, and those which keep them out. Blame is pointing out in directions opposite. One of them is right, not both.

The very fact that Europe and the USA have to build walls around themselves, as Rome did for five centuries, is a testimony to their success, not to their failure. And those walls are also a testimony to the failure of more general systems of thought (anti-“colonialism”, global plutocracy, pseudo-leftism, over-exploitation of the planet, crazed demographics, etc.)

Another example: I detest the Moroccan regime (supposedly directly descended from Mahomet, actually just a full blown plutocracy). Yet, one has to visualize the local conditions before crushing it with blanket blame.

And the EU will get some of the blame: the EU haughtily decreed that “Morocco was not European“. That is insulting. Moreover, it is false geographically, genetically, and according to deep history. To boot, it’s not wise, economically self-defeating, politically stupid and strategically dangerous.

All this, because European leaders are arrogant twerps with not much knowledge where it counts.

Knowing long term history (last 1,000 years), shows that the area claimed by the “Polisario” was long Moroccan (for want of a better word, as past empires, extending all the way to Spain, wore different names).

One such empire was that of the Almoravides, true founders of the present Moroccan regime. The Almoravides empire extended from Senegal (where a founder of the empire was killed by a poisoned arrow), to Alger, Lisbone, and the Baleares islands.

Thus the long grudge of Algeria’s FNL (or whatever it wants to call itself) against Morocco becomes something nine centuries old. It explains the FNL’s hostility against Morocco, its support of the Polisario… And the Moroccan wall does not sound as silly, and outrageous anymore.

Empires are not always wrong in all ways. By definition, they order (imperare), and they can order, because they can defend themselves. The best defense being, often, of course, attack. Thuse when Hannibal had taken residence in Italy for more than a decade, the Patrician who came to be known as Scipio Africanus, suggested to the Roman People to attack in Africa itself, and that audacious strategy was entirely successful: precipitously recalled to Carthage, Hannibal hastily gathered forces were soundly defeated just south of the Punic capital, soon to be punished.

With Mexico, the USA has two choices: build a wall, or impose order (imperare), all over Mexico. The latter was tried a bit in the past, more than once. Next time it could well be more thorough, and definitive.

For the USA, letting 100 million Mexicans in, is not really an option

As it is Spanish is already the second language of California, and, extrapolating some trends, could become the first someday. (I do speak Spanish a bit, BTW, so I am no rabid Spanish hater.)

However, as they are immigration flows in Europe and the USA are sustainable… As long as the dominant European and American civilization is successfully imposed. In France, by some estimates, 95% of anti-Judaic attacks are attributed to persons of Muslim ancestry. This is symptomatic of borderline dangerous assimilation situation (more than ten people have died because of it, some little children, directly targeted in an elementary school, for being Jewish, and other French people… including at least one Muslim French paratrooper… a natural victim of anti-Semitism!)

What was particularly grotesque about the Iron Curtain is that it was to keep in workers who were supposed to be living in a paradise made for them. In other words, it was a lie.

The walls between Europe and Africa are not a lie. At least 50,000 have already died trying to cross them in the last ten years (the EU officially says 35,000 drowned in the Mediterranean alone). If one includes the Algerian Harkis of 1962, one speaks about hundreds of thousands dead… trying to get to Europe.

This is testimony of another lie: the standard anti-colonialist discourse. According to it, colonialism, whatever that was, depicts the ultimate evil. Clearly, the regimes that succeeded have been worse, by many measures. And that was entirely predictable: removing the colonialist administrations was equivalent to removing most of the anti-plutocratic safeties.

So walls there are. Contemplating them is good. But the hardest walls to remove are in those erected with the minds which harbor them.

Patrice Ayme’