I would have thought the early human migratory routes out of Africa would have moved through Arabia, Indian sub-continent, Indo-China, Malaysia and surrounding islands before arriving in Australia.
So why don't the aborigines look more like other S-E Asians, especially Indonesians.
Did you know there is a period of history where Aboriginal Australians actually FORGOT how to make fire?
No wonder they were considered fauna for so long
I doubt that, the dumb asses literally burnt down all their forests.
Truly more ape than human
That's not true. Early British reports speak of them starting fires in Tasmania.
Southeast Asia was originally filled with people like this, arguably southern mainland China was as well.
Aboriginal Australian, Southern Indians, Southeast Asia and Melanesia all had "black" people. Everyone else are invaders. Not even memeing.
>I heard someone joke about this once but it has never been proven true
Because they've lived in Aussie land for thousands of years and adapted to that climate. Indos are forma later migration to their areas but Indonesias comprise of many peoples though so I assume you mean the Asian ones.
/thread.
We wuz Asia n sheeeit
So where was the origin of the S-E Asian 'invaders' then? What time period does this go back to?
They don't look black
Pretty freaking long, like most actual population displacements.
UV protection dumbass.
This.
How can you be so retarded OP?
You're actually right. In fact all of India at one point had people looking something strikingly similar to Abos, but less ugly since they weren't inbred.
The Ancient Elamites were also australoids and had blackish skin. South-East Asia was also abo until invaders from the north (mongoloids/East Asians) invaded the region and mixed with the natives.
You can see the SE Asians like Malays, Flips and Indonesians have that dark hue in their skin, it's due to their ancient ancestors have the same skintone as Abos.
Perhaps before the Bronze Age?
Why are North Indians lighter than southern Indians? Aryan invasions and other subsequent invasions turned the people of that region that had arguable the same skintone as Abos today to become lighter.
Papuans/abbos are the earliest peoples to migrate around the world who exist to this day, and if they were extinct we'd probably consider them a separate species.
There is genetic evidence that they people'd the americas millennia before the main wave, and were absorbed by the more successful and larger population.
>Why are North Indians lighter than southern Indians? Aryan invasions and other subsequent invasions turned the people of that region that had arguable the same skintone as Abos today to become lighter.
No. North Indians and South Indians have different skin colours because they live in different latitudes. There was no aryan invasion, only aryan migrations. The people in north india prior to these migrations were relatively light skinned as well.
But they are homo sapiens though.
Only Tasmanians
Even that wasn't true, it was a meme that originated from one dude who said he didn't see them using fire, they never forgot.
This much race denial... How do you explain that southern upper caste indians are so much lighter in skin tone than their low caste neighbors, if the aryan invasion is a myth.
Lower castes are outside much more the higher castes and it was preferable to get a light skinned woman?
>Lower castes are outside much more the higher castes and it was preferable to get a light skinned woman?
Nope, it's because the aryans which migrated to India circa 2000 B.C. established a race-based caste system with them on top. Of course mongrelization occured but you can still see the racial distinctions of the castes today.
>arguably southern mainland China
The Ancestors of Flips/Indonesians/Malays WERE from what is now Southern China.
They then paddled to Southeast Asian islands and took it over the Niglets. Some massacres even happened because the Niglets did not have a concept of war.
Or is it because of farming techniques used?
upper castes have a variety of skin tones, and so do lower castes. Sometimes I wonder if people have their 19th century pamphlets as primary sources.
Source?
indo-celt
>upper castes have a variety of skin tones, and so do lower castes.
Right, over 4000 years mixing happened, but one day go to Tamil Nadu, the difference is still striking. It goes deeper than skin color, it also includes facial structure. The upper castes are far more caucasoid in appearance (pic related)
>Sometimes I wonder if people have their 19th century pamphlets as primary sources.
What do marxists have to with anything?
About which part?
forgot pic
Both. Austronesians were a violent tribal people, akin to Vikings. Niglets literally had no concept of war until violent cunts with steel fell on them.
Cringe.
Why don't you do some research on the topic before spouting your bullshit on Veeky Forums?
This isn't /int/ for fuck's sake.
>Why don't you do some research on the topic before spouting your bullshit on Veeky Forums?
Why don't you refute my claims if you think they are false instead of attacking me?
reddit pls
Because you're a retarded fuck who just assumes India had the same exact population and wasn't subject to migrations for over 40,000 years
>sumes India had the same exact population and wasn't subject to migrations for over 40,000 years
What? Are you brain damaged? My post was literally about the aryan invasion, which didn't happen 40000 years ago but 4000 years ago.
What do you mean, reddit please?
I'm from the Philippines and Africanish people like these used to inhabit the Philippine Islands by loads. Come the great migrations and 20 years later, you can now only find them in one place and in one island. Why?
Because our ancestors were violent fucks. Headhunting was a meme in some tribes. Tribes close to shore practiced piracy in the lean months and do not consider it a crime.
>What? Are you brain damaged? My post was literally about the aryan invasion, which didn't happen 40000 years ago but 4000 years ago.
Are YOU retarded you dumbfuck?
I was referring to the fact that the first settlers of Australia went there over 40,000 eyars ago and it's impossibel that the Indian population stayed the same during that time and only changed with Aryan migrations
>Are YOU retarded you dumbfuck?
Calm your tits nigger not my fault you fail at basic reading comprehension.
>I was referring to the fact that the first settlers of Australia went there over 40,000 eyars ago and it's impossibel that the Indian population stayed the same during that time and only changed with Aryan migrations
I never claimed that. You are strawmanning hard.
I find that plausible but not likely.
The chinese have had pale skinned farmhands for centuries, maybe millennia. They described in their historical records the difference between the noble yellow farmers and the savage brown barbarians.
I dont think that's the case either. Aryan and words similar to it are almost always associated with people, place and land. When we describe people from Eurasia we use the suffix arian such as; Tocharians, Barbarians, Sumerians, etc. In english we use the word Area to describe a place. In some PIE languages arya is a word for land or earth.
Whoever the Aryans were they left their legacy in our modern day languages.
Yes you did, you said that Dravidians were "the same as native Australians, just less inbred"
>you said that Dravidians were "the same as native Australians, just less inbred"
Where? That wasn't me, you stupid fucktard. This was my first post :
Australia is fucking hot and sunny? They've been there 40,000 years or something.
How does it feel to know that in 40,000 years todays white Australians will look the same as them?
>So where was the origin of the S-E Asian 'invaders' then?
The Yangtze, where rice cultivation originated. Austroasiatic speakers spread south into Indochina, while Austronesians and spread into Maritime Southeast Asia and Oceania through Taiwan. Since they were the first agriculturalists in the region they quickly replaced the native populations.
>What time period does this go back to?
In Indochina, around 3000-2000 BC. In Maritime SEA, around 2000 to 1000 BC.
>Right, over 4000 years mixing happened, but one day go to Tamil Nadu, the difference is still striking. It goes deeper than skin color, it also includes facial structure. The upper castes are far more caucasoid in appearance (pic related)
>tamil nadu
you mean the place that had brahmins being imported from northern india much later for kings to gain legitimacy?
Take a look at bengali brahmins, or average north indian brahmins and lower castes, if you are a foreign person you won't be able to see the difference.
Durrrrr, because they moved there before east Asians were a thing. They (and related groups) were the original inhabitants along the Indian ocean coasts. Look at Sri Lanka, Tamils for example are basically abos that didn't make it all the way. Same with Andaman islanders, like the Sentinalese too. Ditto for Melanesians. Melanesians have had more Asiatic infusion over the eons, but are related to abos. Negrito populations lived across SEAsia and the Filipinos before asiatic settlers came.
Flips ARE Asiatic Settlers.
>How does it feel to know that in 40,000 years todays white Australians will look the same as them?
That's not exactly how it works. We have sunscreen and have abundant amounts of shade from the sun. People aren't going to look different.
Thank you. Very interesting.
So what we would consider to be the native populations of China, Vietnam etc have only been there for approx 5000 years?
Yes, and that's what I said. Read closer, m8.
Meant to say Philippines not Filipinos, but whatever.
>"only natives for 5000 years"
only?
Europe's checkerboard is far more recent. North America likewise.
Some Abos look very similar to Sri-Lankans.
phenotype doesn't actually reveal that much.
>When we describe people from Eurasia we use the suffix arian such as; Tocharians, Barbarians, Sumerians, etc. In english we use the word Area to describe a place. In some PIE languages arya is a word for land or earth.
>dat laughable folk etymology
lol, please stop.
Slash and burn is a pretty effective way to fertilize the soil once-off. The next spring, plenty of tasty young shoots sucking up all that carbon, which attract big tasty game animals which you can hunt. The fires themselves also corral animals into kill zones, which you can pick off or else pick up their BBQd corpses after.
This is basically what all humans did before agriculture.
The problem is that it has decreasing yields after a couple years, because a portion of carbon/topsoil will blow away as ashes in the wind. At some point you need to let the forest/savannah regenerate for some decades. In jungle climates, at low intensity, this is OK because tropical plants grow quickly. Australia however, has slow-growing vegetation, in a mostly arid climate.
The Australian bush is well adapted to fire too (at least the eucalypt forests).
This, you can still find remnants of these "negritos" populations in places like the Philippines and Taiwan (But they are extinct there). Southeast Asia was populated by these fuckers and got chinkified later. Just look at pureblooded Dravidans.
The chink race is a more modern development, these fuckers are much more archaic.
if related groups stop mixing with eachother for 50k yrs and only inbreed for that time period then genetics diverge
that is what happened with the isolated veddoid poulations of andaman, papua, australia, india etc
>Slash and burn is a pretty effective way to fertilize the soil once-off.
>impling Abos even have a clue what fire even fucking does
>"only natives for 5000 years"
only?
Europe's checkerboard is far more recent. North America likewise.
Just meant that in evolutionary terms this is next to nothing. Egyptians were building the Pyramids at this time.
True, and one might question whether eucalyptus are as widespread as they are because of human thousands of years of human intervention.
I get what you're saying, and would basically agree, but using the term 'inbreed' is a touch edgy and inaccurate. Those islander examples, yes. Though how unhealthy they are due to a smaller/bottlenecked genepool is simply unknown. A lot of our genes are arbitrary or as-yet-unknown filler codes, so sure 'genetics diverge', but in our timeframe, it's pretty insignificant.
Just to be pedantic, 'Egyptians' in the modern sense didn't exist. Modern Egypt was heavily Arabized from the 7th century, though the Romans and Greeks had been dripping themsevles into the gene pool of the elites for a few centuries earlier... There's not a lot of specific continuity between the Pyramid builders and modern Egyptians, although they probably looked fairly similar.
