Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asian2duracell (talk | contribs) at 21:44, 4 April 2007 (→Modern findings: whats the point of tamil or dravidian its actuall the same... mybe he was a man from another state migrated or a Tribal man...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Australoid is a broad racial classification, no longer widely used by anthropologists, of Australasian peoples, most notably the Indigenous Australians and Melanesians. An alternative label is Australo-Melanesian.They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of Melanesian and Negrito groups. According to this racial classification model, Australoid peoples range from areas of Southeast Asia (particularly the Philippines, Malaysia, India and the subcontinent, New Guinea and Melanesia). The Andamanese, aboriginal inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, display a similar phenotype.

History of the theory

As of 1795 such groups typically were classified Malay (the brown race) according to Blumenbach's influential color-coded five race model, and contrasted with the white, black, red, and yellow races. In an attempt to simplify human diversity and account for everyone, this model was reduced down to a just three main races: The red and yellow race were grouped together and called mongoloids, the white race was called caucasoids, and the black race was called negroid. The exact location of the brown race in this new world view was inconsistent. Some lumped them in with negroids because of their dark skin and prognathism while others believed they were caucasoid because of their wavy multi-colored hair. By the early twentieth century, anthropometric studies led to the argument that they constituted a distinct racial group, which was labelled Australoid. This model is most associated with the anthropologist Carleton S. Coon. Mesolithic Southeast Asians were found to display similarities to modern and ancient Australians, from which fact it was concluded that Australoids represented a distinct lineage surviving from an ancient wave of human migrations. Descendents were supposed to have survived in geographically isolated locations, while on the mainland early Australoids were assimilated or displaced by Mongoloids.

Isolated populations such as the Gondi tribes in northern India were thought to represent vestiges of earlier Australoid populations. It was also argued that the Dravidian peoples of South India may be related to such populations. Indeed, some Dravidians today commonly are described phenotypically using various synonyms such as Australoid, Sudroid or Negrito-Australoid. Most, however, were placed by Coon in the Caucasoid category.

In the mid-twentieth century an argument emerged that Australoids were linked to proto-Caucasoids. R. Ruggles Gates argued in 1960 that they are "best classified as archaic Caucasians".

However, as with other phenotypical classifications of humanity, the value of the term Australoid has been in part challenged by genetic studies which have identified significant differences between distinct peoples who have been placed together within the category. As a result, most anthropogists have abandoned the system of racial classification of which this term is a part. One of the main problems with confirming an australoid race at the genetic level is that this population has been genetically absorbed into much larger oriental and caucasoid populations that have invaded their habitat; very few relatively pure australoids still exist. Template:Carleton S. Coon Racial Definitions

Modern findings

Modern genetic studies of human migration out of Africa suggest that a population lineage stemming from an early out-migration may account for some commonality in the ancestry of groups who have been included in the Australoid category. In 2002, geneticist Spencer Wells, based on genetic studies, concluded that there was an early human migration approximately 60,000 years ago from Africa to India and then on to Australia. Wells found DNA markers that linked African San populations with a man living in Tamil-Nadu and to Australian Aboriginals whose DNA his team examined.

The first Americans?

Skulls comparable to Australoid peoples have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with phenotypical similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent. These have been termed by some Pre-Siberian American Aborigines. These early Americans left signs of settlement in Brazil which may date back as many as 50,000 years ago.

One of earliest skulls recovered by archaeologists is a specimen scientists have named Lucia. According to archaeologist Walter Neves of the University of Sao Paolo, detailed measurements of the skull revealed that Lucia revealed that she "was anything but mongoloid." Further, when a forensic artist reconstructed Lucia's face, "the result was surprising: 'It ha all the features of a negroid face"....

Scientists believe these Australoid first Americans later were displaced relatively recently by peoples with more brachycephalic profiles, projecting zygomas and monolids (cold climate morphology) approximately 7,000 to 9,000 years ago. A small number of peoples living in Tierra del Fuego are speculated to be a possible remnant of these earliest known Americans.

The pre-European Fuegeans, who lived stone age-style lives until this century, show hybrid skull features which could have resulted from intermarrying between mongoloid and negroid peoples. Their rituals and traditions also bear some resemblance to the ancient rock art in Brazil."....

Homo floresiensis

The recent discovery of diminutive humans on the isle of Flores has led to debate about whether or not they constitute a a distinct species, labelled homo floresiensis, or a subspecies or homo sapiens. Teuku Jacob, chief paleontologist of the Indonesian Gadjah Mada University and other scientists reportedly disagree with the placement of the new finds into a new species of Homo, stating instead, "It is a sub-species of Homo sapiens classified under the Austrolomelanesid race".

Notes

1. Early South Americans Australo-Melanesian- like; The American Journal of Human Genetics, volume 80 (2007), pages 29–
2. Zvelebil, Kamil V. Tamil Traditions on Subrahmanya-Murugan, Introduction." Accessed 01-07-2007.
3. For an overview of theories of racial classification in south India see M.K. Bhasin, Genetics of Castes and Tribes of India: India Population Milieu, 2006
4. Ruggles Gates, R. "The Australian Aboriginals in a New Setting", Man, April 1960, pp. 53-6,
5. Scientific American, Skulls Suggest Differing Stocks for First Americans, December 13, 2005
6. National Geographic, Americas Settled by Two Groups of Early Humans, Study Says, Dec 12, 2005
7. ."First Americans were Australian." BBC News, Sci/Tech. August 26, 1999. Accessed 01-07/2007.
8. ."First Americans were Australian." BBC News, Sci/Tech. August 26, 1999. Accessed 01-07/2007.
9. "Flores man not a new species". November 6, 2004. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

See also

• Race
• Sundaland
• Sundadont
• Indo-Pacific languages

External links

• "Negro and Negrillo", by M. Stewart
• Australians were the first Americans

This article relating to anthropology is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

• v
• t
• e

• Anthropology stubs
• Race (historical definitions)