|
|
|
|
|
|
by defrost
995 days ago
|
|
|
> It might be more accurate to say that every people engage(d) in this nature to the extent that they are capable Questionable that every people did this, eg: Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416 strongly suggests that Australia was first settled by people spreading out, finding an area that suited them, and settling down such that the most recent indigenous DNA in various areas matches (bar evolution) the earliest DNA in those areas (ie no waves of replacement). |
|
|
Aboriginal Australians have one of the lowest average IQs of any ethnic group on earth, they had little to no concept of agriculture or weaponry, and existed in relatively small disjointed tribes rife with infighting and appalling violence in an unforgiving climate.
Were these people capable of organising, planning, equipping, strategising, and executing an assault on their neighbours? Would it have even been worth it - what would they gain? Even if capable, they may have been wisely unwilling.
I think it's incredibly naive to think that a capable tribe of Aboriginal Australians would have left their defenceless neighbours in peace if they stood in the way of valuable resources. Or that this didn't indeed occur countless times in relatively small skirmishes.