Australian Aborigines as a group of people best represent the "Australoid" race - other Australoid peoples include the Melanesians of Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and New Caledonia.
The Negritos are the only Australoid people in Southeast Asia - they are called as Orang Asli in Malaysia, Aeta or Agta in the Philippines, Haitan in Vietnam, and Jawara in Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
The only Southeast Asian nation or territory populated by a majority of Australoid peoples would be the ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS. They are currently a territory of India, but are geographically in SOUTHEAST ASIA.
Malaysia also has a significant number of ORANG ASLI in the Malayan Peninsula, and the Philippines has some AETAS, AGTA, or DUMAGAT scattered throughout the archipelago. Indonesia also has PAPUANS and people from Maluku who are also Australoids.
WHAT ARE AUSTRALOIDS YOU ASK?
THE FIRST BRANCH OF THE ORIGINAL BLACK HUMANS. AUSTRALOIDS ARE A BRANCH OF NEGR0ID. THEY'RE ANCESTORS ARE THE FIRST PEOPLE WHO LEFT AFRICA. AS WITH YOUR TYPICAL BLACKS, ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS ARE ANOTHER DESCENDANT OF THE ORIGINAL NEGR0IDS. ABORIGINALS ARE A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.
SOURCES:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race#cite_note-7 which reads:
According to this model of classification, Australoid peoples ranged throughout Australia, New Guinea, and Melanesia, as well as different parts of Oceania, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, and the Southern Middle East[4]. (PERSONAL COMMENT FROM TONY: WHICH ARE ALL ASIAN COUNTRIES / THUS SEEMS AUSTRALOID IS A BRANCH OF MONGOLOID THAT JUST LOOKS NOTHING LIKE THE TYPICAL MONGOLOID, YELLOW PEOPLE)
SAME SORCE ALSO STATES:
Forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkenson says that Australoids have the largest brow ridges "with moderate to large supraorbital arches".[13] Caucasoids have the second largest brow ridges with "moderate supraorbital ridges".[13] Negroids have the third largest brow ridges with an "undulating supraorbital ridge".[13] Mongoloids are "absent browridges", so they have the smallest brow ridges.[13] Australoids are usually dolichocephalic.[5] Their hair is usually silky, black and wavy.[5] Australoids usually have large, heavy jaws and prognathism.[5] The skin is the color of chocolate and the irises are dark brown or black.[5]
2. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zUhr8PfllL4J:www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/925+australoid+first+people&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us WHICH READS:
you wrote:
Yet, everyone viewing that program saw it with his or her own particular bias. This is evident when you read the questions posed to Dr Oppenheimer on the discovery website. Someone questioned whether Africans should be considered Homo sapiens since the common gene is extant outside Africa.
While some posters on this forum question the African-ness of Aborigines of Australia and Negritos of South Asia, when the program clearly links them to the first migration out of Africa between eighty to seventy-five thousand years ago. I had my own problems with the program but I will get to that later. >
This statement deserves attention here:
There is no question that Australoids migrated out of Africa, nor that they were one of the first if not THE first wave fo humans to migrate out of Africa. I have myself stated that Australids began their occupation of Asia 70,000 years ago, to reach the Australian continent by 40,000.
This would then mean that because they ressemble Africans in so many ways, they must have been among the first people to branch off from the parental group.
Mediterranean people, followed by White and Oriental people followed several thousands of years later. These people did not migrate out of Africa but rather evolved away from those original Australoid migrants from Africa. White people cannot be detected prior to 40,000 years ago so this would mean the following:
1) Australoid people were the first to branch off from the original Black Humans between 100-70 000 years ago. Because of isolation and mutation, they evoloved several traits that set them apart frmo the "trunk" or the ancestral Africans.
2) Further isolation and mutation, along with new weather conditions (cold, snow, low incidence of ultra-violet) resulted in the creation, from these original "out of Africa" stocks, of the White and Oriental races.
Some of the oldest modern human fossils in southern Europe are described as "Ethiopian-like" and even "Australoid-like" by various European anthropologists and paleontogists. This would mean that Caucasoid (and eventually Mongoloid) people evolved from Australoid and ******* types as a result of new conditions that brought about mutations and evolutionary conditions that modled these migrants into "new races". Same can be said of American Indians who have evolved while retaining some of the parental genes, from the original Mongoloid ancestors.
What I have been saying all along, is not that I deny that Australoid people, and in fact ALL people come from Africa because saying so would contradict all evidence brought forth by science thus far.
What I am saying however is that after thousands of years of mutation, isolation and evolution away from ancestral types, you can not say that Australoid people are "the same as Black Africans". They are bound by common origins which brought them together until fairly recently in Human history but they are no longer one and the same people.
Negritos and Papuans were for a long time classified as "Pacific Negroes" until more recent studies has associated them more closely with Australoid people including the Dravidians and Veddas. Their clear ressemblance to Africans however (which anyone can observe) shows that the branching off of the Australoids from the ******* and Capoid stocks took place first and that because of this, Australoids and Africans (including Negroind and Capoid races) still share similar traits (whinc in addition are partly thanks to similar weather and environmental conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARE ATIVE AMERICANS (WITH ASIAN ANCESTRY) THE FIRST PEOPLE TO DISCOVER AMERICA?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm which reads:
Sci/Tech
'First Americans were Australian'
This is the face of the first known American, Lucia
The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines, according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.
The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of prehistoric skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.
Until now, native Americans were believed to have descended from Asian ancestors who arrived over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and then migrated across the whole of north and south America. The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level dropped.
How rock art suggests a violent end for the "Australian" Americans
However, the new evidence shows that these people did not arrive in an empty wilderness. Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.
The site is at Serra Da Capivara in remote northeast Brazil. This area is now inhabited by the descendants of European settlers and African slaves who arrived just 500 years ago.
But cave paintings found here provided the first clue to the existence of a much older people.
The costumes and rituals shown in rock art survived in Terra del Fuego
Images of giant armadillos, which died out before the last ice age, show the artists who drew them lived before even the natives who greeted the Europeans.
These Asian people have facial features described as mongoloid. However, skulls dug from a depth equivalent to 9,000 to 12,000 years ago are very different.
Walter Neves, an archaeologist from the University of Sao Paolo, has taken extensive skull measurements from dozens of skulls, including the oldest, a young woman who has been named Lucia.
"The measurements show that Lucia was anything but mongoloid," he says.
Walter Neves has measured hundreds of skulls
The next step was to reconstruct a face from Lucia's skull. First, a CAT scan of the skull was done, to allow an accurate working model to be made.
Then a forensic artist, Richard Neave from the University of Manchester, UK, created a face for Lucia. The result was surprising: "It has all the features of a ******* face," says Dr Neave.
Lucia's skull is 12,000 years old
The skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to about 60,000 years, and were themselves descended from the first humans, who left Africa about 100,000 years ago.
But how could the early Australians have travelled more than 13,500 kilometres (8,450 miles) at that time? The answer comes from more cave paintings, this time from the Kimberley, a region at the northern tip of Western Australia.
Here, Grahame Walsh, an expert on Australian rock art, found the oldest painting of a boat anywhere in the world. The style of the art means it is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000 years old.
And the crucial detail is the high prow of the boat. This would have been unnecessary for boats used in calm, inland waters. The design suggests it was used on the open ocean.
Fantastic voyage
Archaeologists spec