A careful study of what is preserved of the Tasmanian language suggests that although phonologically it is uniform, there are some indications that a close analysis might resolve its constituents into two etymological elements and this may yet be done without proving that the original possessors of these elements belonged to different races. Lesson does not assert the contrary, although he leans that way. de Quatrefages held that the Tasmanians were a pure distinct race. But, if the opinion that a cross between two dark races once peopled Australia, involves the admission that the Tasmanians were such a cross, until the latter view receive some corroboration beyond conjecture the former must be discredited.
If the Papuans of New Guinea and of Tasmania respectively be classed as different races, I am not disposed to deny absolutely that two dark races and not one only, have formed the basis of the Australian race, because, as will be demonstrated, it is certain that people of the Tasmanian type have left traces in most parts of the continent and it is anything but improbable that a sprinkling of New Guineans should have affected the population in the north-east. His conclusion is based almost exclusively upon premises derived from craniometry which according to Huxley is of little or no value for determining-racial origin. The brachiocephalic race he identifies with the Negrito, the dolichocephalic with the Papuan, and the fair race with the Malay. The Tasmanians he regards as the issue of the two first, the Australians of the two last. One of the black races was of short stature and brachycephalic or mesaticephalic, the other-tall and dolichocephalic, while the third or yellow race was hypo-dolicho-cephalic. Lesson 1 denies that the Australians have anything in common with the people of India, and he argues that in Australia and Tasmania three different races have combined,' two of these being black the other light brown or yellow (jaune). Lesson, clearly and confidently stated is almost identical with this dimly conceived one, but is better substantiated. How, when, or where the fusion took place, if not insoluble the solution was not attempted. The evidence in support was only the geographical position of Australia and the physical features of its people superficially scanned, and was so slight as to leave the allegation only a bare assumption. But after British settlement, observers among the colonists by comparing the natives with typical Melanesians, could readily perceive very marked physiological differences and some colonial writers hit upon the hypothesis that the Australians were of mixed Papuan and Malay blood. Is the common belief correct that the dusky barbarians whose last vestiges are now rapidly melting away are the real indigenes 1 oris their being so called the result of hasty careless observation and imperfect knowledge ? To call them the Aborigines is convenient, especially as they have from their first appearance in history been so called, and as they seem homogeneous and without rival claimants to the distinction, but without any desire or hope of depriving them of the title it will be easy to prove that it does not properly belong to them.Īt the time when this southern continent was known as New Holland its inhabitants were loosely designated Papuans.
In entering upon a study of the Australian Aborigines, the question “ Who are they 1 ” meets one upon the very threshold. Curr’s main conclusions have been widely different from those enunciated in this essay. Curr, on “The Australian Race,” which from its comprehensiveness and especially from its abundant vocabularies has been of very great service, although some of Mr. Obligations have been generally acknowledged by exact references in loco, but the writer desires to express special indebtedness to the work of his friend, the late Mr.
0 kommentar(er)
