Would prehistoric humans have been considered negroid or australoid by modern standards?

Status
Closed
Sep 2012
927
Prague, Czech Republic
Please explain & fill in details regarding your opinion & knowledge. But please do answer the main question first before adding in more details, even if to explain how this subject statement has no merit!
Your question is too poorly defined to answer. The diversity of form included under the term 'prehistoric humans' is significantly larger than that covered by living humans. Who are we looking at? The Vindija Neanderthals? 'Mungo Man'? The Idalto skull? These would all have looked very different to each other, even without taking into account features we can't directly observe from fossils such as skin and hair colour. The difference between the three would quite likely have been noticeably greater than the differences between living groups of people.

We could try and figure out which modern racial groups share most features with individual fossils; but there's no meaningful answer to the question of which is most similar to all of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,386
Australia
..... Furthermore, their ancestors (of Australoids) have never practiced agriculture as there’s no evidence of that ever reaching or originating on the continent, ...
Thats a bit confusing ... the 'ancestors of Australoids' never practiced agriculture' - that may be right .

But no evidence on 'the continent' - what continent ? Australia ? We have plenty of historical evidence of agriculture here ., but not that it 'reached' here , and hard to prove also it originated here , but then, its particular form here and its relationship to the environment , and how its form changed the environment and flora and fauna points to a strong suggestion that it originated here. But, of course, no evidence here of ' pre- Australoid' .
so haven’t been under similar biological pressures which the ancestors of most other people in the world have undergone from agriculture & sedentary lifestyles.
That seems a mis-perception , many Australian Aboriginals, over time have had agriculture and, a partially sedentary lifestyle, but it was different from other types of agriculture and life styles, so did not show the same 'biological pressure' as say, that in Mesopotamia, Induc valley, etc .

I’d be interested to read more about how sedentary lifestyles may encourage neoteny to develop within populations. Hunter-gatherers no doubt existed well into historical times around the world, but they would have been increasingly exposed to agriculture & civilization over the ages, & its now widely acknowledged now that groups traditionally identified as hunter-gatherers have not had in most cases a continuous history of so, & that groups throughout history have been switched between. But that’s ruled out in Australia with no evidence of agriculture whatsoever there.
Where did you get this information ?

Please cite the source of 'no evidence of agriculture WHATSOEVER in Australia .
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,386
Australia
Your question is too poorly defined to answer. The diversity of form included under the term 'prehistoric humans' is significantly larger than that covered by living humans. Who are we looking at? The Vindija Neanderthals? 'Mungo Man'? The Idalto skull? These would all have looked very different to each other, even without taking into account features we can't directly observe from fossils such as skin and hair colour. The difference between the three would quite likely have been noticeably greater than the differences between living groups of people.

We could try and figure out which modern racial groups share most features with individual fossils; but there's no meaningful answer to the question of which is most similar to all of them.
Indeed ... 'pre history ' (prehistoric ) people lived in Australia 300 years ago !
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,386
Australia
..... Furthermore, their ancestors (of Australoids) have never practiced agriculture as there’s no evidence of that ever reaching or originating on the continent, ...... But that’s ruled out in Australia with no evidence of agriculture whatsoever there.
....
Oi ! Millenium . Are you going to address the challenge I made about your above bogus claim .

Or are you in the habit of declaring BS ( 'no evidence whatsoever' ) personal views and then running off ?
 
Oct 2017
275
America ??
Hi specul8. Sorry for my late response. Am very busy lately, am actually about to start a biology program in my uni, which is related to what we’re discussing here isn’t it?

Well, it’s traditionally believed that Indigenous Australians never engaged in widespread food production like in most other parts of the world, that the Neolithic revolution never reached them. But yes, now that you mention it, I see that there’s growing body of evidence that may not be entirely true, that it’s now known that they have practiced environmental modification & various forms of food production even if not the same kind of large scale agriculture as in the civilizations of other parts of the world, though I haven’t actually read them yet. You probably know some of them obviously, why don’t you share some of those sources here?
Also, do you think civilization ever arose in Australia?
 
Last edited:
Oct 2017
275
America ??
@ kaficek

Well, let’s do what you suggest then. That seems to be the best way to approach this topic now doesn’t it?

Well, Australoids seem to be most similar skeletally, so arguably have the closest appearance, to the paleo homini among modern humanity overall just by virtue of having the most archaic features among living humanity, but yes like you said are still well within the range of modern humans, & that the differences between the different homini not even including us, would be far greater than between any living humans. But that being said, I’m sure few would deny that Australoids like Australian Aboriginals look very different indeed to northern mongoloids like Eskimos & North-East Asians, & that they can be considered the extreme ends of the spectrum of phenotypical diversity within living humanity.
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,386
Australia
Hi specul8. Sorry for my late response. Am very busy lately, am actually about to start a biology program in my uni, which is related to what we’re discussing here isn’t it?

Well, it’s traditionally believed that Indigenous Australians never engaged in widespread food production like in most other parts of the world, that the Neolithic revolution never reached them. But yes, now that you mention it, I see that there’s growing body of evidence that may not be entirely true, that it’s now known that they have practiced environmental modification & various forms of food production even if not the same kind of large scale agriculture as in the civilizations of other parts of the world, though I haven’t actually read them yet. You probably know some of them obviously, why don’t you share some of those sources here?
Well ... you where VERY adamant ;

" (Aboriginals ) have never practiced agriculture as there’s no evidence of that ever reaching or originating on the continent, so haven’t been under similar biological pressures which the ancestors of most other people in the world have undergone from agriculture & sedentary lifestyles. .... But that’s ruled out in Australia with no evidence of agriculture whatsoever there. "

There are too many sources thats why , in early settler and explorer historical accounts and others and early colonial landscape paintings.

See ; The Biggest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia by Bill Gammage

But now, what I am interested in is the evidence and proof and sources from people that claim what you did . What are these sources, how did they get this information ? Saying "well, its traditional " does not explain anything . How did it come about, and specifically, how did this opinion form in you ?

Also, do you think civilization ever arose in Australia?
Thats a tricky word !

Depending on the definition;

civilizationDictionary result for civilization
/ˌsɪvɪlʌɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: civilisation
  1. the stage of human social and cultural development and organization that is considered most advanced.
    • the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social and cultural development and organization.
      the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area.
      - YES

      .....



      The comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in towns and cities.
    • - NO
      ....
    • any complex society characterized by urban development, (NO)social stratification imposed by a cultural elite, (YES) symbolic systems of communication (YES) (for example, writing systems (NO) ), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment.[NO)





      (That last one was a strange one ! from Wiki )
    • Collins says ;
      A civilization is a human society with its own social organization and culture.
      (YES)

      2. uncountable noun
      Civilization is the state of having an advanced level of social organization and a comfortable way of life.
      (YES)

      3. uncountable noun
      You can refer to a place where you can enjoy the comforts that you consider to be necessary as civilization. (YES)
    • civilisation - a society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations); (YES) .... although we run into a similar difficulty with the term 'organisation'.
Maybe ask a more direct question about what YOU mean by civilization.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2012
927
Prague, Czech Republic
@ kaficek

Well, let’s do what you suggest then. That seems to be the best way to approach this topic now doesn’t it?

Well, Australoids seem to be most similar skeletally, so arguably have the closest appearance, to the paleo homini among modern humanity overall just by virtue of having the most archaic features among living humanity, but yes like you said are still well within the range of modern humans, & that the differences between the different homini not even including us, would be far greater than between any living humans. But that being said, I’m sure few would deny that Australoids like Australian Aboriginals look very different indeed to northern mongoloids like Eskimos & North-East Asians, & that they can be considered the extreme ends of the spectrum of phenotypical diversity within living humanity.
Hi Millenium,

I'm unclear on what basis you're classing Australoids as most similar to extinct humans. Thing is, the variation within modern human populations is usually much greater than that between them, to the extent that when compared to significantly different examples of humans from long ago, there is no meaningful way to say one population is closer to the extinct ones than another. To emphasise this, I've borrowed a figure from Lordkipanidze et al 2013. The point of the paper is actually something else - they were trying to show that several different 'species' of extinct humans should be treated as one species, since the variation within one population (the Dmanisi hominids) encompasses the variation of several other named 'species'.

But the figure makes a nice point about modern humans. To make things clearer, I've colour coded the modern humans. There were three samples used to represent modern humans - one consisting of Africans, one of American Indians and one of Australian aboriginies. The range of the Australian sample is outlined in blue, the African in yellow, and the American in red. The crosses below the modern humans are Neanderthals, and the two x's are 'Homo heidelbergensis' and 'Homo rhodesiensis', if you think of these as species. The bits in the middle are various older hominin specimens and the big clusters in the bottom left are modern chimpanzee and bonobo skulls.

1550958008752.png


Now, this is only one measure being plotted here (it's the ratio of the protrusion of the face to the size of the neurocranium) so you would see different patterns with other measurements. But, on this measure at least, there is no modern human population closer to extinct ones than any other. Modern humans; in comparison to extinct humans, are a clearly defined separate group in which populations overlap heavily with one another.

This was why I meant we need to be specific about which prehistoric humans we're talking about. All the prehistoric samples here are at least 50,000 years old. Looking at people that old, no human population is more similar to them than any other. Looking at more recent populations this might change, but then I doubt there would not be one modern population more similar to all of them.

And I don't think I would agree that Australoids and north-east Asians represent opposite extremes of modern human variation. For starters, there are many axes along which we can measure this - and they don't lie on opposite ends of those that are easy to do in your head. They are neither the tallest nor shortest living humans for example; nor are they are the darkest nor fairest. I'm confused why you think this is an obvious fact few would deny, since there's nothing immediately apparent to suggest it's correct. Why do you think it is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: specul8
Oct 2017
275
America ??
^ phenotypically or appearance speaking.

Now I’m no expert in human evolution, yet it’s very clear & long acknowledged by anthropologists that australoids, that is Australian aboriginals & Papuans, as a group, posses the most archaic phenotypic features of living humanity, including the largest brow ridges, thickest bones & teeth, & are hairiest, within living humanity. Their prognathism seems to be similar with negroids or Africans. Basically, negroids & australoids possess more archaic or ancestral phenotypic or physical traits than the northern races, caucasoids & mongoloids, do. It is the people’s described as mongoloid who have undergone the most phenotypic changes, neotenization, from the ancestral form.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed