I saw a couple of scenes over half hour period. The documentary went over the top although the AMH were indeed black skinned. I don’t like how they showed the in coming AMH Africans as cowardly and scared while the light skin Homo Erectus was brave and aggressive. It is was more likely the other way around. Homo Erectus was a brute. Besides Neanderthal was black skinned and in all probability homo Erectus was also black skinned.
Even BBC has to produce with the audience in mind. Ie white homo Erectus dominating a cowardly Black African. However is it is a welcome change acknowledging recent African ancestry to ALL of us.
Also -
As I said. The in coming evidence is the Negro phenotype is relatively recent. And I am not the only one that holds that view. I believe, and the mounting evidence is AMH left Africa with black skin but more or less like Native Australians in phenotype. These people seemed to occupied Europe and all of South East Asia including Oceania
Concerning the in coming Modern Humans from Africa, they said in the documentary, that they both were territorial, & would stake out areas to hunt etc. By the incoming Modern Humans from Africa being new to certain areas & not having the home court advantage, so to speak, they would be at a disadvantage which made them very cautious for they were in a new land, that was not that familiar to them; whereas the Homo Eretus was on home turf & would act in a very aggressive manner in protecting their territory from any intruders esp. from beings, they had never seen, or encountered .
Also in the documentary they did state that over a period of time Homo Eretus, & Neanderthal skin changed over time to accommodate the environment that they were living in. When you can have the time to give these documentary your undivided attention, for they I.M.H.O. are worth viewing in their entirety !
------------------------------------
Why Have the Peninsular "Negritos" Remained Distinct? Geoffrey Benjamin 2013
Abstract
The primary focus of this article is on the so-called negritos of Peninsular Malaysia and southern Thailand, but attention is also paid to other parts of Southeast Asia.
I present a survey of current views on the "negrito" phenotype—is it single or many? If the phenotype is many (as now seems likely), it must have
resulted from parallel evolution in the several different regions where it has been claimed to exist. This would suggest (
contrary to certain views that have been expressed on the basis of very partial genetic data) that the
phenotype originated recently and by biologically well-authenticated processes from within the neighboring populations. Whole-genome and physical-anthropological research currently support this view. Regardless of whether the negrito phenotype is ancient or recent - and to the extent that it retains any valid biological reality (which is worth questioning) - explanations are still needed for its continued distinctiveness. In the Malay Peninsula, a distinctive "Semang" societal pattern followed by most, but not all, so-called negritos may have been responsible for this by shaping familial, breeding, and demographic patterns to suit the two main modes of environmental appropriation that they have followed, probably for some millennia: nomadic foraging in the forest, and facultative dependence on exchange or labor relations with neighboring populations. The known distribution of "negritos" in the Malay Peninsula is limited to areas within relatively easy reach of archaeologically authenticated premodern transpeninsular trading and portage routes, as well as of other nonnegrito, Aslian-speaking populations engaged in swidden farming. This suggests that their continued distinctiveness has resulted from a wish to maintain a complementary advantage vis-à-vis other, less specialized populations. Nevertheless, a significant degree of discordance exists between the associated linguistic, societal-tradition, and biological patterns which suggests that other factors have also been at play.