h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A few years ago, I heard someone postulate that rather than being bred out or kiled off, that Neanderthals left Africa and Eurpoe and migrated southeast, eventually crossing land-bridges and such, to settle in what would become Australia. This would mean that the aboriginal peoples of Australia are, in fact, evolved from Neanderthal.
I doubt this theory holds much value, but I always found it interesting.

the term 'abos' even with the apostrophe to denote a contraction is offensive. aside from historical connections with abuse, Australian Aborigines (aboriginal is an adjective or adverb) are, perhaps uniquely, not known by a general ethnic or cultural term. aboriginal people will sometimes give themselves a more specific regional or familial identity.

the underlying problem is that having been given such a generic label, 'aborigines', giving them a status no different to animals or trees, and with no reasonable alternative likely to make it into common use anytime soon, it is reasonable that this not be reduced even further and that it be given proper capitals.

Yike!

Thanks mate, I didn't realize I was using an offensive term - thought I was just using vernacular expression. I appreciate the clarification - by no means did I intend an offense!!

But in that case, what IS an accurate nomenclature for such peoples? "Native Australian"?

And, um, you didn't offer any input on the initial point I was trying to bring up?

Thanks again for the clarification.

unfortunately there is no simple answer to the question of an alternative. 'Aborigines' is the generic term for indigenous australians. 'Indigenous Australians' is also acceptable. 'Aboriginal' as a noun is frequently used but, strictly, it is a qualifier. Given the subject matter, 'Indigenous Australians' is probably the most appropriate since certainly some rock artwork has been 'disowned' by local Aborigines. Further, and edging towards answering your other question, not all indigenous australians are Aborigines. Torres Strait Islanders for example are distinct in identification. (tho they will be aboriginal- i hope that doesn't confuse things even further). Moving even closer to answering your question, human remains have been found of extreme age in australia that challenge the single origin hypothesis. whether the 'other' subspecies of man is neanderthal or not, i am not qualifed to venture an opinion. however, as one scientist said in rebuttal of the single origin thesis, and i paraphrase, if all modern humans are soley descended from the last migration out of africa, then they would have needed bicycles, since it would not have been possible for humans of the same type as modern Aborigines to have gotten there in the time frame.

i realise you meant no offence by the word 'abo'. as a white australian i am sensitive to the appalling historical treatment of indigenous australians. the term has long since vanished from the vocabulary of ordinary australians, tho doubtless it is still to be heard in the more retarded parts of society. i have noticed online however that non australians will use the word unaware of its connotations. paradoxically i will sometimes get flamed by these people who will accuse me of my 'disgusting treatment of abos'. there is a bitter irony in that usage, and i think it important to prevent the word gaining a new, international, currency.

stuff on early humans in australia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mungo_Man

It would be surprising if Mungo Man (the Australian remains you refer to) were neanderthal - they were restricted to Europe and western Asia.

The Wikipedia link describes the remains as 'anatomically identical to modern humans'.

Gif

it gets complicated. there were two types of hominids co existing there. one is a gracile and the other is robust. 'anatomically identical' really just means they are human. as was pointed out in the entry, even neanderthals are well within the normal contemporary range for human anatomy. what is meant, i think, is that these VERY old remains are not proto humans or primate relatives as their age might as first suggest and which the late out of africa thesis probably requires.

Neanderthals were within some of the sapiens boundaries (height, weight and brain size differ on average between species but the ranges within each species overlap) but the brow ridge and chin were distinctive.

By paleontological standards, 40,000 years isn't that old; neanderthals lived from around 130,000 to 24,000 years ago, with sapiens also appearing around 130,000 years ago (possibly longer).

Gif