Monday, August 23, 2004


On 15th., I mentioned here the summary by Windschuttle about the pygmy population that the early settlers of Australia found in the jungles of Far North Queensland. Julian Calendar in his post of 16th. has taken Windschuttle to task over the matter with the claim that the pygmies are not a remnant population but rather an adaptation to jungle life on the part of other black populations. I am no physical anthropologist but the sheer wrongheadedness of the claim seems fairly breathtaking to me -- particularly coming from an Australian. Australia not only has a halo of Melanesian nations (e.g. Papua New Guinea) to its immediate North but part of Melanesia is actually IN Australia (the Torres Strait Islands). And what do we know about Melanesia? We know that the jungles of New Guinea and its surrounding islands are as dense as jungles anywhere -- so they must all be pygmies too? The Melanesians of New Guinea and elsewhere are in fact a fine upstanding race of generally rather big men. The Fiji police force has long made female visitors to Fiji drool! And what about one of the world's most notable pygmy races -- the Bushmen of South Africa?. I suppose the Kalahari desert where they live is a jungle too? What utter rot it all is! Clearly pygmies are earlier races who have sought refuge in inaccessible places to avoid being totally wiped out by bigger and stronger races.

Further notes: Harpending & Eller (PDF) explain why even a low interbreeding rate could over time lead to the observed similarities in appearance between pygmy and surrounding tribes without at the same time wiping out all tribal distinctiveness and the rock-art record suggests a two stage immigration of primitive people into Australia.


No comments: