Prior to Christianity, polygenism, the theory that views human races as different species having separate origins, was not an issue because man (in the context of Aryan) was the centre of his world, therefore his ‘god’ was a reflection of him and made only him. If there is a multiple theory it would suggest that the godhead is different from the worshipper. The idea is found in ancient Greek and Roman literature but only in response to the Christian. For example the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate in his Letter to a Priest wrote that he believed Zeus made multiple creations of man and women. In his Against the Galilaens Julian presented his reasoning for this belief. Julian had noticed that the Germanics and Scythians (northern nations) were different in their bodies (i.e complexion) to the Ethiopians. He therefore could not imagine such difference in physical attributes as having originated from common ancestry, so maintained separate creations for different races. However, polygenism as a theory gained particular ground in response to the extreme racial differences encountered through overseas exploration and increases in trade routes in the late 17th century and early 18th century. Common sense aided by empirical evidence from physical anthropology demonstrated that the ancestry of other races could not be the same as the Caucasoid. Its rival was the largely Bible-based monogenism.
From an academic standpoint currently there are two types of polygenism the first (called monophyletic polygenism) still promotes the ‘out of Africa’ pseudo-hypothesis. Here homo sapiens evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago, their progeny gradually spreading world-wide through emigration replacing populations found outside Africa. Positing that the indigenous population in Europe was the Neanderthal, this is how the Jewish Zio-Marxist theorises the appearance of alien DNA in Europe. The second type (called polyphyletic polygenism) hypothesizes that the human species arose through separate evolutionary lines in a number of different places at different times. Scientists have yet to reach a consensus on which of the two versions of polygenism—the monophyletic or polyphyletic—is more likely to be true (Harpending 1994). Nevertheless, the monophyletic model merely corresponds to monogenism in its dogmatic approach to species formation (Afrocentrism).