PDA

View Full Version : Are Aborigines Homo Sapiens Sapiens?



OdinThor
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 07:22 PM
Looking at pictures from Aborigines I am asking why they are considered to be sapiens sapiens?
Their facial features are almost like a modelation of some archaic homo.
http://www.kururrungku.wa.edu.au/seniorgirls/Jacinta.JPGhttp://www.mkschubert.de/thai/aborigines.jpg
http://clipartreview.com/_gallery/_LG/1055225.jpg

Homo Erectus:
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/ultimatesurvivor/images/early_man_03.jpg
Homo Sapiens Idalto:
http://www.svf.uib.no/sfu/blombos/Mod_H_The_Debate/images/Idaltunoback.jpg

Their primitive tribal lifestyle is also interesting. And they are known to be alot less intelligent than for example Europeans.

What makes them Spaiens Sapiens? That they can reproduce with Europeans? I would consider them to be quite distant from us!

Agrippa
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 07:32 PM
I'm not sure if the sapiens sapiens notion makes sense anyway, speaking about possible modern human subspecies, races, however, they are primitive, archaic, yes, but still sapiens.

Waarnemer
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 08:11 PM
There are some modern aborigine females living today with cranial capacity under 1,000cc. This indicates they are still at the Erectus/Sapiens threshold. - coon, in his origin of races

Thusnelda
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 08:22 PM
They really look like Homo erectus or some kind of archaic human. I dont understand this, because I learned that Australia was settled by some Asians and tribal Indians on their way to the east...but no other people on the world look like Aborigines. From which tribe do they descent?

Waarnemer
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 08:34 PM
They really look like Homo erectus or some kind of archaic human. I dont understand this, because I learned that Australia was settled by some Asians and tribal Indians on their way to the east...but no other people on the world look like Aborigines. From which tribe do they descent?

From the origin of races:

The Australoid sub-species has three races: (i)Australoid proper, (ii) Tasmanian and Papuo-Melanesian (iii) negritos.

All are descended from Pithecanthropus which was Homo Erectus that lived on Java 500,000 years b.p. Pithecanthropus had the legs of an Australian aborignal and the skull was evolving in the same direction.

Also found on Java was Solo Man who was also Homo Erectus and live there 100,000 b.p. Pithecanthropus and Solo have similar skull shape but Solo is larger. This shows that there was little evolution in the wet tropics of Java over a period of 400,000 years.

Cranial capacity (male/female):

Pithecanthropus: 900cc/775cc
Solo: 1,150cc/1,040cc
Modern Australians: 1,350cc/1,180cc

There are some modern aborigine females living today with cranial capacity under 1,000cc. This indicates they are still at the Erectus/Sapiens threshold.

A skull from the Niah Cave in North Borneo establishes the existence of Australoid Homo Sapiens 40,000 b.p.

Wadjak, a Homo Sapiens, found also in Java had a cranial capacity of 1,475cc. It's age is between 10,000 and 40,000 years old.

Sometime between Solo and Wadjak, the transition between Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens was made. This transition may not have ocurred on Java but from a gene flow from the mongoloid region to the north. Wadjak shows extraordinary facial flatness.

Wadjak is as large and heavy as the Heidelberg jaw found in Germany. It is not known whether Heidelberg (which is at least 360,000 years old) was Erectus or Sapiens. The teeth are similar in size to many modern Europeans and the skull base was narrow which is indicative of Sapiens.


but no other people on the world look like Aborigines.
Well in mexico there existed until relatively recent times (spanish conquistadors) primitive people resembling aboriginal - perhaps even more archaic. Unfortunately i lost the info on my pc.

OdinThor
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 09:06 PM
I'm not sure if the sapiens sapiens notion makes sense anyway, speaking about possible modern human subspecies, races, however, they are primitive, archaic, yes, but still sapiens.

But shouldnt there be a scientific term to indicate the extraordinary differences between these "sapiens". If science today wouldnt be so political correct they would have made that distinction already, wouldnt they?


There are some modern aborigine females living today with cranial capacity under 1,000cc. This indicates they are still at the Erectus/Sapiens threshold. - coon, in his origin of races

According to Richard Lynn Australian Aborigines are having an average IQ of 62 only above Bushmen of the Kalahari and Pygmies of the Congo rain forests with an IQ of 54.

QuietWind
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 09:07 PM
I came across this website one day and I was surprised that these two aboriginal women didn't look like the pics of ones we see posted here on Skadi like those above.

http://www.stiffgins.com/biography.php

http://www.stiffgins.com/assets/misc_pics/nardi.jpg

From the Yuwaalaraay people with roots in Sydney's inner West and country NSW,

http://www.stiffgins.com/assets/misc_pics/kaleena.jpg

Kaleena is from the Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta people, southern NSW & northern Victoria peoples,

OdinThor
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 09:11 PM
Nardi Simpson and Kaleena Briggs.

They have European ancestry.

QuietWind
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Nardi Simpson and Kaleena Briggs.

They have European ancestry.

I wouldn't go by last names to confirm this. Many Native Americans Indians in the US have adopted European last names, yet have no European ancestry. The Slaves also took on European last names, even ones who were not mixed.

Maybe Australia is no different?

Agrippa
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 09:18 PM
They are obviously mixed, no way that they are fully Australid.

Australids are genetically related to some Asians and Australoid/Australo-Melanesid groups exist in Asia too, however, the difference between them and Australids is mostly due to the fact that they were primitive groups coming to Australia and living there in isolation in a relatively stable-unchanged environment. They just kept primitive traits others lost. If looking at the isolated Australian continent, we can see many surviving primitive mammals which died out in other regions and being substituted by more advanced, developed forms.
Its not that different for Homo sapiens, though there are quite big differences between Australoids of Australia and Tasmania. Tasmanids and some Aborigines from Australia, especially the dwarfish groups, being the most primitive groups of mankind most likely, surviving archaic forms only comparable with Palaemelanesids, Sanids, Bambutids etc. Most of them being extinct already or exist mostly in mixed populations now.

The Black Prince
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 10:55 PM
Once in a classification thread of Bismark I mistakingly assumed a Eskimo skull for an Australoid skull.:-O

The Pintubi skull (1800 AD.) is an Australoid skull with very archaic dimensions.
http://i2.tinypic.com/velret.jpg
Here it is compared with a Europid skull

http://i2.tinypic.com/veltmf.jpghttp://i2.tinypic.com/veltao.jpg
Compared with an H. Erectus.


Affinities
Although we are describing differences that might seem to approach speciation, we must remember that these are differences in grade only.
Affinities suggested by these descriptions are all Homo sapiens, to be sure. Let no misinterpretation be made here.
There is, however, enough variance from the norm to suggest some carry-over morphology from earlier or archaic anscestry. A continuity or link to the past, as it were.
The link might be inferred to the influence of robust hominids of late Pleistocene Asia. The obvious candidate for this backward probe would be the aforementioned Homo erectus Soloensis of Ngandong, Java.
In a previous investigation, I was able to inspect casts of 2 calvarias - a 20,000 year old Australian aborigine (WLH-50) and an Indonesian (Ngandong, Java) Homo erectus Soloensis and was amazed at their nearly identical proportions.

A picture is worth a thousand...
This same Javan Ngandong sample will be shown in the photo section for comparison to Pintubi-1.
The photographs are the meat of this essay. They are the evidence that allow the reader to make his/her comparisons and judgements.

Source: http://canovanograms.tripod.com/pintubi1/

Agrippa
Thursday, April 13th, 2006, 11:44 PM
This skull is a perfect example for primitive traits and they made a comparison with a progressive skull on this site too, whats really nice to show the difference between primitive and progressive traits.

Compare:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=43471
More on that:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=44712

Gaian Meroveus
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 12:20 AM
quotequote=Agrippa]I'm not sure if the sapiens sapiens notion makes sense anyway, speaking about possible modern human subspecies, races, however, they are primitive, archaic, yes, but still sapiens

The question is: are australoids in actuality members of the species: Homo sapiens Sapiens.

The answer is most likely yes, as they can freely interbreed with other races of mankind.

Australoids are most likely the representatives of some archaic race of humanity, isolated from the general, wider human experience for tens of thousands of years.

They are possibly most closely associated with homo sapiens as opposed to HSS than any other modern human racial population.

But it gets even more primitive than the Australian Aborigine.
The pygmy negritos of the andaman islands in the Indian ocean are in appearance and speech barely recognisable as modern humans.

Be aware that the Dravidians of India are a hybrid race built upon a foundation of australoid progenitors.
The U.S. census bureau would have us regard them as caucasian.


Best wishes,
_Gaian Meroveus.

Nordgau
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 02:23 AM
But shouldnt there be a scientific term to indicate the extraordinary differences between these "sapiens". If science today wouldnt be so political correct they would have made that distinction already, wouldnt they?

If terms such as "primitive" and "archaic" are to weakly for you, I've still got another trump-label in my sleeve: The von Eickstedt school was bashed by present-day politically correct historians for speaking of "theromorphic primitivity" (theromorphe Primitivitšt) for the most primitive racial forms of mankind, especially Australids and other "old-stratum races", or for such characteristics, respectively, particularly things like prognathism. "Theromorphic" means "animal-like".

Agrippa
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 02:31 AM
The question is: are australoids in actuality members of the species: Homo sapiens Sapiens.

The answer is most likely yes, as they can freely interbreed with other races of mankind.

The species is just Homo sapiens, everything below that species designation is "open to interpretation" and whether you accept the notion that all humans are just members of the same subspecies of man or not is open to debate me thinks. F.e. there was the time when Europid/Caucasoid and Negrid/Negroid were thought of being two different subspecies by many (even species but thats a way too far off...).
So that they can interbreed is just relevant for the biospecies definition.

Furthermore the argument of Homo neanderthalensis being Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (just subspecies) and Homo sapiens sapiens the other surviving element, just subspecies, is something I personally oppose for various reasons.

Bridie
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 02:58 AM
I came across this website one day and I was surprised that these two aboriginal women didn't look like the pics of ones we see posted here on Skadi like those above.

http://www.stiffgins.com/biography.php

http://www.stiffgins.com/assets/misc_pics/nardi.jpg

From the Yuwaalaraay people with roots in Sydney's inner West and country NSW,

http://www.stiffgins.com/assets/misc_pics/kaleena.jpg

Kaleena is from the Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta people, southern NSW & northern Victoria peoples,

I'll have to agree with those who said that these women are of both Europoid and Australoid ancestry.... and I would say that the Australoid ancestry they have is proportionally very little too.

I'll have to post a pic of a friend of mine whose Dad is German (fair skin, blonde hair, blue eyes) and whose Mum is 1/4 aboriginal. Most people who don't know many aborigines (non-Australians) think that she's of southern European or middle eastern origin of some description. She looks about as aborigine as the women pictured above. (Although her hair is light brown, turning dark blonde in summer)

Just my 2c worth!

(PS. I hope I got the terminology right! :D )

Gaian Meroveus
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 03:24 AM
Furthermore the argument of Homo neanderthalensis being Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (just subspecies) and Homo sapiens sapiens the other surviving element, just subspecies, is something I personally oppose for various reasons.


Homo neanderthalensis has been been shown by credible genetic research to have been a totally different species as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I agree that the ability to freely interbreed between the races of mankind does not necessarily imply that, for instance, the Nordic racial entity could not have been well on it's way to speces(special) differentiation before it's genepool was infiltrated with outside blood effecting the gene frequencies of nordic populations.


Best wishes,
_Gaian Meroveus.

Leofric
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 04:29 AM
If science today wouldnt be so political correct they would have made that distinction already, wouldnt they?
If science today weren't so politically correct, then they would treat the human species the same way they treat other species ó synchronically. Why the paleo-anthropologists should be the only ones who get to determine human taxonomy is beyond me. With every other living species, we let the experts in actual biology do the taxonomy first and then the paleontologists come in and attach their theoretical reconstructions like footnotes onto the present (and therefore known) taxonomy produced by the actual biologists.

If we did that with humans, and if we were honest, then we would recognize that there are actually a handful of human subspecies all occupying the planet together. Then the paleontologists would have to base their theories on what we knew about actual reality rather than the other way around.

So I would say that none of us is H. sapiens sapiens, since I reject that subspecific classification altogether. And though Australian aborigines are unquestionably in the same species as we are, I think it's clearly safe to say that they are not in the same subspecies. But we should not let the paleo-anthropologists trick us into thinking that difference in human subspecies necessarily indicates difference in levels of progression.



According to Richard Lynn Australian Aborigines are having an average IQ of 62 only above Bushmen of the Kalahari and Pygmies of the Congo rain forests with an IQ of 54.
I'm no expert in psychological research, but could it be possible that these low scores are due to cultural bias in the instrument itself? I know I have encountered quite a few instruments purporting to be IQ tests that actually require a great deal of cultural knowledge.



the argument of Homo neanderthalensis being Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (just subspecies) and Homo sapiens sapiens the other surviving element, just subspecies, is something I personally oppose for various reasons.
Interesting. May I ask for what reasons?

Rhydderch
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 06:28 AM
They really look like Homo erectus or some kind of archaic human. I dont understand this, because I learned that Australia was settled by some Asians and tribal Indians on their way to the east...but no other people on the world look like Aborigines. From which tribe do they descent?I think they're a bit of a mixture actually. The first people were very "robust", and their genetic influence is apparently strong in the modern population. But there is also a strong influence of an East Indian looking type (possibly the most recent invaders), taller and thinner, with straight, very black and almost silky looking hair. And there are also more Ainu looking individuals, very hairy, stocky, and having somewhat snub-tipped noses, with a high forehead; and then there is the curly haired, more Negro looking type.

Agrippa
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 03:59 PM
Interesting. May I ask for what reasons?

I agree with all what you said and to put neanderthalensis in the species category of Homo sapiens would just mean to shift everything to a more narrow picture of "the human race", since its clear that Neandertals were further away and specialised very differently from sapiens, even if comparing Europids and Australids, its clear that all modern huamns are closer than that.

I didnt saw any real proof for successful hybridisation of sapiens and neanderthalensis neither nor would single hybrids make them the same species necessarily if considering all the deviating traits and the possibility of long term negative effects of mixture between the two species. But obviously I'm primarily speaking about the classic Neandertals of Europe with their extreme one sided and primitive specialisation and not necessarily about the forms of the Near East like Skhul and Quafzeh, though I doubt a significant influence for them too.

Thusnelda
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 04:32 PM
Thanks for the answers Arthur Eld and Rhydderch. :) I havent known this until now.

ubbe
Friday, April 14th, 2006, 11:50 PM
Dont put too much into the "if they can breed then they are the same species" arguement. There are a few species I know of off hand that can breed with other very closely related species and produce sexually reproductive offspring. Some members of the genus canis can produce viable offspring. Also first hand, I use to raise african cichlids, there are hundreds of species of them and scores of them can produce viable sexually reproductive offspring with eachother if you are not careful. Its was a major pain making sure the tank didnt get overrun by hybrids.

Leofric
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 01:23 AM
Dont put too much into the "if they can breed then they are the same species" arguement.
It's not an argument. It's the traditional definition.


There are a few species I know of off hand that can breed with other very closely related species and produce sexually reproductive offspring. Some members of the genus canis can produce viable offspring. Also first hand, I use to raise african cichlids, there are hundreds of species of them and scores of them can produce viable sexually reproductive offspring with eachother if you are not careful. Its was a major pain making sure the tank didnt get overrun by hybrids.
This is true. My father is a herpetological taxonomist. He has told me about certain snakes that can produce fertile offspring in crosses that cut through what have been considered different genera. His response to that anomalous situation (as an expert in the field of herpetological taxonomy), is that we must either change the definition of species or change the classification of those snakes.

Every scientific theory we have known is incomplete in its ability to accurately describe the real world. That includes traditional taxonomy. It also includes the more new-fangled genomic taxonomy. Where the theory fails, people usually try to patch the holes in the theory. Then after a while someone new will come along and propose a whole new theory that doesn't need the specific patches of the dominant theory. People will see that the new theory is superior to the old in those few particulars, and then rush to reject the old and convert to the new. Unfortunately, those converts never see the holes in their new theory that will eventually need patches just like the old one had. That's a Kuhnian scientific revolution.

Now I know you're not saying here that we should reject traditional taxonomy and switch over to genomic taxonomy ó I just get worried when I hear people suggesting that we throw out old theories. The old theories do have problems, and it's appropriate to point out those problems honestly and recognize the inadequacy of the theory. But the tendency after that recognition to run out and embrace a whole new theory as gospel is so strong and so detrimental both to science and to healthy transgenerational cultural transmission that I feel compelled to speak out against such a tendency.

Yes, traditional taxonomy, like any scientific theory, is flawed. But it's still pretty darn good. And the flaws really are quite few.

Agrippa
Saturday, April 15th, 2006, 01:42 AM
Whereas I agree with the criticism being interesting, I think that the biospecies concept is the only viable one which really makes sense. So honestly, if detecting such "two species which can produce fertile and functioning hybrids over generations" I would rather suggest to change the name of the respective taxa than the whole taxonomy since the biospecies concept is too logical and useful for being overthrown because of single exceptions, which are most likely the result of insufficient knowledge about the involved species.

However, another question would be if its about different species if they live very far away from each other and dont reproduce because of that in nature, but just in zoos and labs. Usually then the question would be, if they live in the same region, if they would freely procreate with each other, because if not, its already on the species level - f.e. some birds could still reproduce if its about the genetic mateiral, but their behaviour deviates so much from each other that they never would in nature, the only hybrids could come from labs = species.
The same can't be said for humans since some of the first European settlers began almost immediately to procreate with some of the Australo-Melanesid groups f.e.

Digitalseal
Sunday, April 16th, 2006, 05:34 AM
They used boomerangs and paint. Their Art is quite interesting and well painted, their religions are about creators just like Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

I find their music quite intresting and especially the "didgeridoo" music instrument.

Thier imagination is just too strong for an H. Erectus. But i agree that facially they look very "primitive".

∆meric
Sunday, April 16th, 2006, 03:29 PM
The same can't be said for humans since some of the first European settlers began almost immediately to procreate with some of the Australo-Melanesid groups f.e.
I think the main reason some Europeans mated with these people was a shortage of European women. This seems to be the main reason for miscegnation in all settler societies until last half of the 20th century when governments started to promote multiracialism. In some situations (like prison) heterosexual men will have sexual relations with other men but revert back to heterosexuality when removed from these enviroments.
I believe that most Europoid men (and women), left to develope their own opinions about race/sexual relations (without being bombarded with multiracial propaganda) would overwhelmingly prefer Europoid partners unless they were placed in an unnatural enviroment.

Bridie
Sunday, April 16th, 2006, 04:23 PM
I think the main reason some Europeans mated with these people was a shortage of European women. Yes. The only reason, if you don't consider rape, which is a power play and not about forming inter-personal relations, of course. I think it would near impossible to find a white man who would is actually attracted to a full-blood aborigine woman.

Oswiu
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 02:46 AM
I think it would near impossible to find a white man who would is attracted to a full-blood aborigine woman. And vice versa.

That vice versa point interests me. Are Europeans attractive to other races??? [And we shouldn't count the opinions of bordering cultures like those of the Middle East or India, where European looks are present and associated with elitism due to historical circumstances] I once brought this up with some Pakis who live in Britain, but all they said was that they had never really considered it as such and avoided giving straight answers. Perhaps, given globalisation of American pop culture, such a question is harder to answer than it would have been 200 years ago. The Aboriginal woman's views would be shaped to some extent by such power/prestige/selectively-advantageousness considerations, too... no?

Theudiskaz
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 02:58 AM
I think it's pretty safe to say that, under normal circumstances, any white men who are attracted to Australian Aboriginee women are few and far between. I think they would have to have a couple of screws loose. I think that to any healthy white man, Aboriginee women are about as attractive as gorillas, not to suggest there is any resemblance of course!;)

As for non whites being attracted to whites, well we are all familiar, I think with black men's lust for white women. To them, the idea of having sex with even what we might consider an unattractive white woman is overwhelmingly satisfying. In America this is all too familiar.

Agrippa
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 03:01 AM
I think the main reason some Europeans mated with these people was a shortage of European women. This seems to be the main reason for miscegnation in all settler societies until last half of the 20th century when governments started to promote multiracialism. In some situations (like prison) heterosexual men will have sexual relations with other men but revert back to heterosexuality when removed from these enviroments.

Agreed, thats especially true if looking at Australids which are simply one of the most unattractive and primitive types of mankind without a doubt.


That vice versa point interests me. Are Europeans attractive to other races??? [And we shouldn't count the opinions of bordering cultures like those of the Middle East or India, where European looks are present and associated with elitism due to historical circumstances] I once brought this up with some Pakis who live in Britain, but all they said was that they had never really considered it as such and avoided giving straight answers. Perhaps, given globalisation of American pop culture, such a question is harder to answer than it would have been 200 years ago. The Aboriginal woman's views would be shaped to some extent by such power/prestige/selectively-advantageousness considerations, too... no?

I think we always have to distinguish between "used to" and "not used too". If the other racial group was really different or had a strong cultural codex, ideal of beauty, like f.e. the Chinese, it could need some time to get used to first. Then usually some more general characteristics of attractiveness can work, once you are used to a people.
Under this circumstances, as a rule, especially more progressive types can find each other attractive: F.e. Nordsinids Nordids or vice versa, most likely on average, without certain other influences, still some typical racial traits being preferred, but in general there are simply too much similarities.

V. Eickstedt wrote in his major work about East Asian-Chinese culture and its clear that blond-blue eyed typical Europids were considered quite ugly in some sources - like everything foreign was considered ugly in the old Chinese Empire which allowed only the own standards of race and culture more or less.

So there is this "first contact", "cultual barrier", "getting used to the foreign look" etc. step by step model of "getting unsensitive" on that matter. Than such general things like symmetry, healthy characteristics, generally balanced traits, Neoteny, determined look etc. can work. But usually Mongolids still prefer, if wanting Europeans, rather those with less deep set eyes and smaller noses, opposite for Europeans etc.

But thats a comparison of two races which are very different, but, at least in their progressive peaks quite close. For Australids it should work too though, rather in the European direction, after being used to the "new look", since Europids are being shaped by more balanced traits which were under stronger general and sexual selection - Australids are partly close to the most primitive knowns sapiens ancestor of Europoids.

nooneatall
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 05:23 AM
I'm no expert in psychological research, but could it be possible that these low scores are due to cultural bias in the instrument itself? I know I have encountered quite a few instruments purporting to be IQ tests that actually require a great deal of cultural knowledge. I'm afraid that's not the cause.

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/book_review1/

Rhydderch
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 06:12 AM
I've often noticed that a husband and wife look similar, and are often of a similar type (or "subrace"), or mixture of types. As Agrippa was saying, it could be that people tend to be attracted to what they're most used to, so someone resembling family members is possibly favoured particularly. I've also read of scientific evidence for this; a survey found that a man's wife tends to have many similarities to his mother, and a woman's husband to her father. I think it's likely that the same would be found to apply to brothers and sisters, and it's funny because sometimes a couple seem to have a family resemblance insomuch that they could easily be mistaken for a brother and sister.

Bridie
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridie
I think it would near impossible to find a white man who would is attracted to a full-blood aborigine woman. And vice versa.


That vice versa point interests me. Are Europeans attractive to other races??? Sorry, I must have been really tired when I wrote that! LOL I shouldn't have said vice versa! :-O I meant that it would be near impossible to find a white woman who is attracted to aborigine men too. I think its actually quite common for aborigines to be attracted to Europeans....


The Aboriginal woman's views would be shaped to some extent by such power/prestige/selectively-advantageousness considerations, too... no?Yep, insofar as social considerations go, I think you've hit the nail on the head there. :) FWIW, I know of many aboriginal women who are only attracted to white men (will not see aboriginal men), and some that have even married white men, but I have personally never heard of any white woman being attracted to aboriginal men, nor of any who have married them. (I'm sure it must happen though! :| )

I think its fair to say that it is generally thought that a white man who marries an aboriginal woman is defective in some way. (White trash, desperate, on drugs, no standards, etc) And the same would be thought of a white woman who would marry an aboriginal man.

Agrippa
Monday, April 17th, 2006, 03:19 PM
I've often noticed that a husband and wife look similar, and are often of a similar type (or "subrace"), or mixture of types. As Agrippa was saying, it could be that people tend to be attracted to what they're most used to, so someone resembling family members is possibly favoured particularly. I've also read of scientific evidence for this; a survey found that a man's wife tends to have many similarities to his mother, and a woman's husband to her father. I think it's likely that the same would be found to apply to brothers and sisters, and it's funny because sometimes a couple seem to have a family resemblance insomuch that they could easily be mistaken for a brother and sister.

Yes, especially in healthy, more traditional societies with limited contacts that particularly strong, but even in big urban agglomerations that can be observed. Partner selection is strongest if its about details, like an exact form of the eye, lips, nose etc. Its a tendency to stay under the own, keep the traits and "using what proved to be successful" in the own family I'd say. The only thing were really the opposite is preferred is if its about the immune system, since constant mixture and new immunological reactions can be advantages in your offspring. F.e. chances for your children might be higher with different immune-variants than just one if a serious plague is coming - so at least some would survive most likely if you have many different variants in your family.

Rhydderch
Monday, July 24th, 2006, 01:21 AM
I think they're a bit of a mixture actually. The first people were very "robust", and their genetic influence is apparently strong in the modern population. But there is also a strong influence of an East Indian looking type (possibly the most recent invaders), taller and thinner, with straight, very black and almost silky looking hair. And there are also more Ainu looking individuals, very hairy, stocky, and having somewhat snub-tipped noses, with a high forehead; and then there is the curly haired, more Negro looking type.I've changed my opinion on some aspects of this. I think that the hairiness and stockiness come from the very robust type which arrived first, a type which seems to be present among Ainus and Pacific Islanders as well.

This type is by far the dominant element among Aborigines, with the Indian type and the Negro type of minor importance. There may also be an element of a lighter skinned type resembling the pygmies of Africa and Oceania.

Arthur-Robin
Monday, July 24th, 2006, 04:53 AM
I haven't got time to read all 4 pages so I hope what I say hasn't already been said.

Some writers say Aust Abos are homo erectus (eg Tani Jantsang). But modern scientists recently discaded the hom er category classifying them as homo sapiens. My own shallow research found that homo erectus are poss an artificial combination of human and animal/ape (Peking man).
Eg quote: "the post-cranial skeleton is essentially indistinguishable from modern man[!!!!]"

Rex Gilroy of Austalia wrote an article saying there were 2 distinct races in prehistoric Austalia one Kow Swamp/Lake Nitchie type and other Lake Mungo type. I find one or two of the paragraphs/sentences a little confusing but I think he says that the former are like Wadjak or Java/Peking and the latter like Solo man/Sapiens, and that Abos are desc from the 1st/fomer race/type or else from a combination of both.

Some scolars still claim Abos are mixed/Archaic Caucasoids which I actually find intriguing.

Some point out the 3 different races of Australia (Carpentarian, Murrayan, Tasmanian) may hold clues to ancient/prehistoric racial crossings.