Do Australians retain archaic phenotypic characteristics?

Ack

Banned
Messages
122
Reaction score
28
Points
0
The intention is not to be aggressive or offensive in any way. It would make no sense try to be disrespectful to them because most of us also have 'archaic' ancestors.


I don't know to what extent the comparisons make sense or are just sensationalism. Did they really maintain more 'archaic' phenotypic characteristics or are they just more robust?



2D9jMPB.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


shutterstock_678027385_1.jpg


09e6170db373c648ea26862e11da3ea9.jpg
 
Well I have no idea but some of their skulls have a beautiful smile:LOL:.
 
Yes they do indeed, I think.
People of this phenotype have mixed with (south)east Asians, giving their distinct nose shape, as this is originally not a mongoloid trait.
 
I live in the Northern Territory, lots of Aborigines here, the correct word to use is Indigenous. Indigenous Australians have both Neanderthal ancestry and Denisovan ancestry. A double whammy of Archaic human ancestry. They vary a lot in phenotype i.e in height,skin tone, hair type, and a lot of their children are blond haired at least until about 9 years of age. They are also robust in the sense of having thick skulls and large craniums with thick brows. They do have other ancestry from the Papuans in New Guinea, and people from Indonesia that come to the north of Australia after Sea Cucumbers and the Trochus Shell. The Papuans are farmers and have domestic animals but the Indigenous Australians have never cultivated land or kept or domesticated animals though they have dogs introduced from New Guinea and by Europeans. They are an outdoor people, and will prefer sleep out-of-doors rather than in the houses provided for them. Here in the Territory anyone is Indigenous no matter what they look like if they can prove Indigenous ancestry. There are a lot of mixed Indigenous with Europeans.
 
I live in the Northern Territory, lots of Aborigines here, the correct word to use is Indigenous. Indigenous Australians have both Neanderthal ancestry and Denisovan ancestry. A double whammy of Archaic human ancestry. They vary a lot in phenotype i.e in height,skin tone, hair type, and a lot of their children are blond haired at least until about 9 years of age. They are also robust in the sense of having thick skulls and large craniums with thick brows. They do have other ancestry from the Papuans in New Guinea, and people from Indonesia that come to the north of Australia after Sea Cucumbers and the Trochus Shell. The Papuans are farmers and have domestic animals but the Indigenous Australians have never cultivated land or kept or domesticated animals though they have dogs introduced from New Guinea and by Europeans. They are an outdoor people, and will prefer sleep out-of-doors rather than in the houses provided for them. Here in the Territory anyone is Indigenous no matter what they look like if they can prove Indigenous ancestry. There are a lot of mixed Indigenous with Europeans.

you should then know that there are 2 main aboriginal groups ......the Nunga group which covers NT and SA in majority.......and the Koori group which covers NSW and VIC.
unsure on WA and QLD get, maybe a bit of both for QLD............but they also have Polynesians in the North-east of QLD

the extinct Tas group are said to have been the original Aboriginals pushed south by the Nunga and Koori groups a very long time ago

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819516/
 
I'm not aware of the subroups but the ones exposed here and someones I saw on other pictures, labelled pure aborignes, are very archaic, and not only by retaining more robusticity. We have in Europe some pops where we can find a lot of skulls with archaic features spite with gracilisation. BTW when I look at the profile of the skull showed here, it recall me some Shkul or Quafzeh (?) or other archaic skulls found in Palestine, spite not exactly the same.
 
We have to consider that Aboriginals are archaic migrants, Early Paleolithic Eurasians concretely.

Only some percentage of Y-DNA (MS Macro-haplogroup) came in later times, concretely in the Final Paleolithic/Mesolithic.
 

This thread has been viewed 6120 times.

Back
Top