What's the /sci/ opinion on SSA metallurgy? The idea that blacks basically leaped from the late stone to the iron age with some high level of independence is almost unbelievable, but there's some actual evidence for it. Such a potential past is so interesting that I'd be greatly dissapointed if anything else were true...
blacks had bronze in nigeria thousands of year ago during the time of the bantu migration, read about the benin bronzes, why are you retards so ignorant and set in your rigid ways about what blacks can and can't do, and its always a lack of information that fuels this retarded way of thinking, you are always seeking information that preserves your confirmation bias so you are always getting surprised about discoveries that are completely normal
>>16917575> benin bronzesI already knew about those, though I will admit to not being the most educated on this particular topic.> why are you retards so ignorant and set in your rigid ways about what blacks can and can't do, and its always a lack of information that fuels this retarded way of thinking, you are always seeking information that preserves your confirmation bias so you are always getting surprised about discoveries that are completely normalI didn't make this thread with any racist intent, though the discoveries aren't "normal" as other groups had very significant transitional periods while SSA had a transition that was rather sudden in most areas despite evidence pointing towards independent invention.
>>16917584My reason for making this thread was basically to see what others favor as an explanation: foreign introduction, weird independent invention, or something in between.
>>169175841) the point is that technology flowed from west africa to the rest of subsaharan africa, so if they already had bronze, they couldn't as well have transitioned from stone to iron, the bantu got their iron from west africa and transmitted it to the nilotes, khoisan, the pygmies and the hunters and gatherers of east africa, the dorobo, ogiek, hadza, etc, the only other places that maybe had it were the horn and north africa, but it likely had already been transmitted from the middle east, the same case goes for domestication, africa already had camels, donkeys and even cows--the zebu kind that is different from the auroch ancestor of europe and central asia--already domesticated, so africa was not some stone age hunter gatherer back water where europeans brought everything like poltards would have you believe, we need to get rid of this kind of retarded thinking, same case goes for subsaharans mating with a ghost species--it might be true but is completely retarded hill to die on since any two random humans regardless of race have less genetic diversity btn them compared to chimps--our closest species, wolves, dogs, etc, yes that is crazy when you are looking at phenotypes but is an actual fact, on average, the largest genetic differences are largely due to in-population differences rather than btn two populations--the genetic variation btn two people in the same population, a village, or a tribe is greater than that of two people from different populations, an example is your neighbour or friend might be taller or have autism compared to you, that difference is observed in another population in another corner of the world, so in this sense, you are less genetically diverse from a person who isn't taller or who doesn't have autism but is considered a different race,
>>169175892) and this is all due to the fact that there was a genetic bottleneck that happened 75k years ago that left maybe 2 to 10k humans alive, and those humans interbred with each other and led to what we currently have today
>>16917589>the genetic variation btn two people in the same population, a village, or a tribe is greater than that of two people from different populationsI've heard this claim before and it's still bizarre people try to claim it.Small local populations will all share a significant number of recent common ancestors, yet apparently they didn't inherit the same DNA from those ancestors?Can someone convincingly explain how this is true? I don't mean schizophrenically explain it, or ideologically and aggressively explain it, I mean explain it in a way a well-adjusted person would respond to.
>>16918072>Small local populations will all share a significant number of recent common ancestorsif those common ancestors were common enough, they would be inbred, but this doesn't happen on average so its not true
Yuck.
