What's the anthropological history of Australian Aboriginals?
they made a b-line straight from africa to australia along the coast and maybe racemixed with unknown humanoids along the way
>>11321225>>11321227>>11321245They're Elamo-Dravidians that migrated eastwards to Pakistan where they built the IVC, then became the Melanesians, Negritos and Abbos as they continued southwards
>>11321225They are an archaic human species
>>11321225I often wonder if aboriginals had died out like 1000 years ago and anthropologist found their remains today would they be considered homo sapiens?
>>11321424What non-Homo sapiens features do they have?
>>11321225World's oldest living civilisation. All this genetic bullshit /his/ spews is neo-nazi incel bullshit. There are something like 350 different tribal groups, with different people. If they were nomadic, which is the accepted idea currently, there was no inbreeeding. They look different simply because they've had to adapt to survive to one of the harshest environments on earth. The large majority of /his/ isn't Australian, has never been into the bush or the outback and has no idea what they're talking about.
I've heard some theory that they were more advanced when they arrived in Australia than they are today, were capable of seafaring similar to Pacific islanders and shit. How legit it is? Australia is a weirdest place on Earth after all, won't be surprised if it can do something like that to humans as well.
>>11321648They came over on a land bridge that closed off when the ice melted. They did sail to some extent, and some groups in WA had contact with Indonesians who gave them obsidian glass.The real problem is that it was likely green here when they came over, but like Africa temperatures rised and fried everything. Animals adapted (we have no large native 4 legged animals like horses/pigs/sheep for example) and they couldn't farm/build the wheel ect which halted their technological development.
>>11321596>If they were nomadic, which is the accepted idea currently, there was no inbreeeding.Explain that to me please.
>>11321431Is this a serious question? >>11321596>World's oldest living civilisation.Where is their civilisation?
>>11321693Population was much larger than it was now, and Australia is so huge, that groups would occasionally meet and marry off children/intermingle/join other tribes. Chances of inbreeding were extremely small. Inbreeding was also not acceptable in their cultures and was severely punished.If you think that's stupid, there were many countries back in ye old days that couldn't leave their isle/country. I guess that would make all anglos inbred and many other countries as well.
>>11321701Having complex social/cultural and legal systems, known tribes and groups, different languages, artistic expression, cultural practices like basketweaving and in-depth knowledge of the bush not to mention unique technologies such as the boomerang sounds like civilisation to me. I'm guessing you're an uneducated American whose never set foot on Australian soil or talked to an aboriginal person.
>>11321723No writing, no ariculture and no real culture.
>>11321701The aboriginals were able to thrive in the bush while the brits were dropping like flies and depended on the aboriginals for survival and navigation in the bush. It was a civilisation, they were obviously limited in how far they could develop in such an arid and unforgiving environment, but the fact that they were able to thrive should not be discounted by an neo-nazi.
>>11321701Destroyed by evil white men
>>11321729Which means snowniggers and aboniggers are same?
>>11321729Their form of communication was complex word of mouth and art. They weren't able to have agriculture in Australia as they didn't have access to any of the components needed, but they were masters of the land, able to create unique ways of harvesting natural berries and plant life, capturing fish, and killing native animals. They do have real culture and it is quite beautiful, you're probably a white amerifat or a eurocuck so I couldn't expect you to understand.
>>11321716You realise inbreeding is not a 1 or 0 type deal? And while I agree with you that exchange of group members combats this I would call into question whether this supposed "much larger population" was sufficient seeing as their numbers in recent history are not large. As to inbreeding in anglo lands, yeah. Again, varied from location to location and time to time but eg. the Faroese are pretty inbred, Icelanders even track ancestry meticulously to mitigate it. Finns are an insular group with clear hereditary differences (vascular issues) and Africa has tribes so inbred they have ostrich feet (look it up, very funky).
>>11321723That's a pretty low bar for civilization then. Any place on earth is thus civilized. Hell, you could probably make a case for some populations of apes having a civilization too.>>11321732Because natural adaptation to the environment has something to do with whether group was civilized. Next you tell me dolphins are more civilized than yourself because they are better suited to life in the sea.
>>11321225Looking at Kaakutja's skull it's just the typical idea of them being dravidians mixed with denisovans.The one in your pic is just the Chad version of the abos with stronger features and stronger jaw.
>>11321755Australia is 100x times larger than those places, you can fit more than 12 entire united kingdoms into it, made up of millions of people all spread around, many of whom would likely never see each other, Australia is so big. Their numbers are small because they have been decimated by disease and brits.
>>11321766>Hell, you could probably make a case for some populations of apes having a civilization too.But we already do that http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150818-chimps-living-in-the-stone-age
>>11321766It shows they had complex knowledge, culture and development which distinguished them from other civilisations. They had forms of government, social hierarchies, politics and much more.
>>11321775And Africa is yet larger and houses more people and has some of the most severe inbred traits around. What matters is how the subpopulations interact and breed and considering the anemic nature of the Outback I imagine the land controlled by any one tribe is large indeed.>>11321780When they invent the written word and bureaucracy we can talk about civilization. Tool use, "artistic expression" and verbal communication does not a civilization make.
>>11321785Cave-dwelling ancestors likewise had complex knowledge, culture and development distinct enough for us to see tens of thousands of years later. Social hierarchy was also not missing. Still does not a civ make.
Every race skull is different than another.But we have no many aboriginals skulls so we can only do comparisons with that one.Like this peruvian skull and that abo one have the same bridges and long jaw and up mouth features
>>11321787>When they invent the written word and bureaucracy we can talk about civilization.But ants are considered civilized https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/e-o-wilson-says-ants-live-in-humanlike-civilizations
>>11321787Each different coloured section is a clan, there were upwards of 300 of them.Their civilisation was unique in that they had no need for the written word of bureaucracy, you wouldn't know but they are extremely complex in the way they do things, their legal system for instance.
>>11321792So what does in your definition?
>>11321802>Ant man hypes up antsForgive me if I do not take him at his word.>>11321811>>11321818Writing and the keeping of written records along with the accompanying complexity of social interaction (legal system etc.). Hammurabi's code VS tribal "common sense"; works of Antiquity VS caveman campfire stories. The dictionary definition also agrees.If your end is to pollute the definition of civilized to the point that monkeys and ants count then might I suggest you kys? If your point is to say that the various groups have social structures and customs I would agree with you.
>>11321818I use the meaning of civilization when they start to seetle and have a system based on leaders or hunters.Abos had this, but not the standards chief and boss. Their leaders were blessed people by the community and spoke in basis of what the people needed
>>11321846>>11321861Though surely civilisation is contextual? The Romans and Egyptians undeniably had highly developed civilisations in which the Gauls and the Britons looked underdeveloped, yet they are still undeniably civilisations. A group of people communicating their entire culture, society and laws through word of mouth is undeniably more developed than a civilisation unable of doing so and has to resort to writing stuff down. Many of the dreamtime stories are as complex and detailed as say, the Odyssey, Beowulf or the Epic of Gilgamesh. They also, as I've said, have a complex legal system, not just tribal "common sense", you're just being ignorant. > Might I suggest you kys?Real mature, really sounds like you're winning this debateYour ancestors were not aryan, they were not nordic, you are not of Prussian ancestry, you're just descended from a group of peasants, arguably just as or less developed than the aboriginals.
I will buck break the abos.Give me the abos to buck break
>>11321901>"undeniably"Just to get this straight - you consider oral tradition to be more advanced than the written word? Certified Bruh Moment right there. Likewise the implication that tribal "legal code" subject to the whims of the chief is somehow the same as written law and subsequent arbitration is plain kino.Also your assumption that I subscribe to some muh aryans narrative is likewise hilarious. Face it - abos are just plain less developed than the people up north of them were for - far as I can tell - all of recorded history (especially since they did not record anything as they were not civilized enough to do so). I don't know where you get your fantasy or what idiot teacher put you up to this but, to quote the classics - educate yourself. The noble savage myth is a cope and you have blundered straight into it.
>>11321901Also just noticed>reddit spacing
>>11322004They do have recorded history, in word of mouth traditions passed down for thousands of years. Things only have to be written down because they cannot be remembered. I would say having an entire culture surpass the need to write shit down is pretty developed. It's not just tribal "legal code", its a system so complex that it needs to be recognised in the Australian parliament, and currently has practicing lawyers centred around the indigenous system. It's not just the whims of the chief you ignorant fuck.Also> Reddit spacing = readability>"Certified Bruh Moment">Reddit meme
>>11322004You're certainly subscribing to some form of we wuzzing. Being less developed=/=uncivilised. Europe had the luxury of horses, the ability to develop agriculture and the closeness of enemies and constant warring to further develop. How can you tell me to educate yourself when you have proven to be completely ignorant to anything about the aboriginals, dismissing them so easily because of your weird incel phenotype bullshit. Unlike myself, you're not even Australian.
>>11322026>>11322041My fucking god you fill all the stereotypes dont you? A pozzed aussie accusing me of being some reverse kangz after assuming that I am some aryan LARPer. Furthermore, you picked up exactly 0% of the nuance in my statement and swallowed all the bait. And to top it all off you put a nice "unlike myself" bow at the end. Like fucking pottery I swear.pic related
>>11322066> "lol i-i-i'm nuanced! That's a cool word I got from the dictionary!!">"haha it was just bait all along! LOL! Let me post this on r/4chan!"Yeah I did say unlike myself, because why is some retarded american, brit scum, or eurotrash trying to call a group of people he's never interacted with in his life uncivilised monkeys? You don't know these people, you haven't learnt about them, you're just trying to justify your stupid incel aryan ideological bullshit. Pic related
>>11322123I was going to leave it there but you are just too funny. >assumes ethnicity>assumes political bent>assumes I think of abos as monkeysYou are not only dumb as a sack of AIDS needles (pozzed, get it?) but you are also such a racist its unreal. You have made my day.
>>11322144Oh, you must be someone else posting than the person who was initially posting all that stupid shit before. Retards flock together I guess. I don't know why I wasted my time on you.
>>11322161Is there no end to your erroneous assumptions? My sides have left orbit.
>>11322175All I have left to assume is that someone who posts reddit tier memes and says shit like "certified bruh moment" shouldn't be one to talk about civilisation.
>>11321596what about the Australian climate requires a giant brow ridge? Genuinely curious, not trolling
>>11322351Might not be a beneficial change at all. Also could just be a leftover from some ancestral trait. You could find out more if you had the sequence data for the population and some "neighbours" for comparison.
>>11321225The Aboriginals are what you get when you trap Melanesians into Australia by cutting off their land bridge (or short distance straits), change the climate of their environment, and give them tens of thousands of years to adapt to it. Unfortunately (or not) they couldn't develop agriculture like their Papuan neighbors, but it's not like it got the Papuans anywhere either. It's really sad that most of their way of life was abrupted with the coming of the Eternal Anglo, but it is what it is. In a case of civilization collapse, it's gonna be their descendants again (albeit somewhat mixed) that will inherit Australia.
>>11322351No idea. Possibly to help mitigate the extremely harsh sunlight? I furrow my brow in the bright light.
>>11321901>gauls>undeveloped Really anon